


SB bY &cé 





LIBRARY 


OF THE 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 


TEST OH 





Noe 


is 
*% 


oi 















HERODOTOS 


IN 


THE GREEK RENASCENCE. 


A DISSERTATION 
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES 
OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE 


DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, 
JUNE, 1808, 


BY 


DANIEL ALLEN PENICK. 










OF THE 
ARR, ; ae i 
IVERSITY | 
rs OF r 
ae is ~~ 2 ? 
BALTIMORE: 


JOHN MURPHY COMPANY. 
1902, 










Jt. SLEhG 






CONTENTS. 





PAGE, 
I. The Direct Influence of Ancient Writers upon the Renascence........... 1 
A study of Asianism and Atticism, the Period from the Death of 
Alexander to Dionysios of Halicarnassos. 


II. Greek and Roman Estimates of Herodotos.......... aiévdedasase sadudariacusaned 4 
Quotations from Aristotle, Cicero, Dionysios of Halicarnassos, Dio 
Chrysostom, Quintilian, Lucian, Greek Rhetoricians, 


III. Dio Chrysostom, Arrian, Aelian, Philostratos.......... ; Yeissege te 





TY. Lucian—Adéts ciponevn.....cccccccccsescecececcces iuiin caeewntnadiaacd ast peacdnecen =O 
Introductory Remarks upon Lucian. A Study of Herodotos’ Aééis 
cipouevn. A Study of Lucian’s Codrdinate and Subordinate Con- 
junctions and Particles, nal, ré-xat, uév, 5¢, ydp, 54, Iva, ds, Srws. 


ee MMRATMOETIC POPIOUOION Yo. cus ndavicanscckosiieesécesecssecne voscoaevapec sadtoeaaaies 25 
With a Study, De Waibarut ‘{Obertade: and a Consddapution of the 
Question, Whether ép@drns or tAayiaouds Is Preferred. 





Yi. Lucian—His Langu age, Const ructions, Material. eenee POCOHOESOS Scesesegsseees 32 














Digitized by the Internet Archive 
In 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https://archive.org/details/herodotusingreekOOpenirich ea Ee 


hares 
ial 


A ay ‘: 
ot Ty eee 
75 *_ ‘ea 


» 2b 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 





Quotations from Aristotle, Cicero, Dionysios of Halicarnassos, Dio Chrysostom, 
Quintilian, Lucian, Greek Rhetoricians, 
References to Grammars: Kriiger, Kiihner, Matthiae. 
References to Editions of Herodotos: Stein, Merriam, etc. 
References to Editions of Lucian: Bekker, Dindorf, Jacobitz, Reitz, Som- 
merbrodt, etc. 
Other Literature in Alphabetical Order— 
Allinson, American Journal of Philology, 7. 203 ff. 
Bernhardy, Wissenschaftliche Syntax, pp. 306, 486, etc. 
Blass, Die griechische Beredsamkeit in dem Zeitraum von Alexander bis 
auf Augustus. 
Boldermann, Studea Lucianea, 1893. 
Cobet, Mnemosyne, N. 8., 5-98. 
Croiset, Vie et Oeuvres de Lucien, 1892. 
Du Mesnil, Grammatica, Quam Lucianus in Scriptis Suis Secutus Est, Ratio 
cum Antiquorum Atticorum Ratione Comparatur. 
Férstemann, De Vocabulis Quae Videntur Esse apud Herodotum Poeticis. 
1892. 
Gildersleeve, Amer. Jour. Phil., 1. 47; 4.92, 416; 6. 53, 68, 262; 9. 141, 
150, etc.; Pindar, Introd., p. ctx; Justin Martyr, 1 C. 6. 7. 
Grundmann, Quid in Elocutione Arriani Herodoto Debeatur, 1884. 
Guttentag, De Subdito Qui inter Lucianeos Legi Solet Dialogo Toxaride. 
Heller, Die Absichtssiitze bei Lucian, iva, ds, 8rws. 
Hoffmann, De Articularum Nonnullarum apud Herodotum Usu. 
Jebb, The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus. 
Kalinka, Dissertationes Philologae Vindobonenses. 
Lundberg, De Ratione Herodotea Praepositionibus Utendi a Scriptoribus 
Atticis Diversa, 1869. 
Mees, De Luciani Studiis et Scriptis Juvenilibus, 1841. 
Miiller, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur (Donaldson’s Translation). 
Norden, Die antike Kunstposa. 
Planck, Quaestiones Lucianeae, 1850. 
Rabasti, Quid Comicis Debuerit Lucianus, 1865. 
Robertson, The Gorgianic Figures in Early Greek Prose. 
Sagawe, 5¢ im Nachsatz bei Herodot, 1893. 
Schmid, Atticismus (entire). 
Schulze, Quae Ratio Intercedat inter Lucianum et Comicos Graecorum 
Poeticis, 1892. . 
Smyth, Sounds and Inflections of the Greek Dialects. 
Ziegeler, De Luciano Poetarum Judice et Imitatore, 1872. 





holth 











Daniel Allen Penick was born in Cabarrus County, 
North Carolina, September 7, 1869. He received meager 
early training until, at the age of fourteen, he began reg- 
ular attendance in the public schools at Austin, Texas. 
After graduation from the Austin High School, he entered 
he University of Texas in 1887, and received the degree 
of Bachelor of Arts in 1891. The year following he was 
fellow in Latin and at the end of the year took the degree 
of Master of Arts in Greek, Latin and Philosophy. In 
1892-3 he was Assistant Principal of the High School 
at Paris, Texas. In 1893-4 he was Professor of Greek and 
. Latin in Daniel Baker College, Brownwood, Texas. Be- 
ginning in the fall of 1894 he pursued courses in Greek, 
Latin and Sanscrit at Johns Hopkins University. Here 
he was appointed University scholar and fellow in Greek, 
and in 1898 received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 
He attended the lectures of Professors Gildersleeve, War- 
ren, Bloomfield, Smith, Miller, Spieker and Vos, to all of 
whom he takes this opportunity of acknowledging a debt of 
abiding gratitude. | 


oat 





NOTE. 


The writer desires to acknowledge his deep indebtedness to Professor 
Gildersleeve not alone for suggestion and direction on the present 
work and for incomparably patient and illuminating instruction 
through a period of four years, but also for that which is inestimably 
greater, an inspiration to true manhood and true scholarship, the 
pursuit of which will, throughout life, strengthen and ennoble, though 
the goal set may never be reached. He would also express here his 
gratitude to Professor Minton Warren, late head of the Latin depart- 
ment at Johns Hopkins, and to Professor Maurice Bloomfield, and 
emphasize his lasting obligation to them for helpful guidance and 
instruction 


UNIVERSITY OF TExAs, AUSTIN, 
Aug. 16, 1902. 





-HERODOTOS IN THE GREEK RENASCENCE. 


OF ZN 










CHAPTER I. 


THe Drrect INFLUENCE OF ANCIENT WRITERS UPON 
THE RENASCENCE. 


That writers of the Greek Renascence are much indebted to 
older authorities is an undisputed fact. But it is not so clear who 
the older authorities are—possibly all the classic writers down 
through the ten orators, or Homer, Herodotos, Early Comedy. 
There are those who say that this influence was through later 
writers who were themselves indebted to the old masters, 
Especially is it claimed for any who might have used Herodotos, 
that the authority was rather Ephoros and Theopompos, or even 
writers still later. To refute this latter position, it is necessary 
to study the history of prose composition between the two periods, 
the decadence and the revival, the fall and the rise in the ex- 
cellence of composition. Blass’ has compiled and elaborated 
Dionysios of Halicarnassos, Cicero, and Quintilian.? The desig- 
nating terms, Atticism and Asianism, mean respectively Attic 
simplicity and a departure therefrom, so called not from any 
Asiatic influence, but from the fact that during the prevalence 
of Asianism the greatest literary activity was in Asia Minor, 
though the demoralization was prevalent in all Greek com- 
munities, having originated probably at Athens. ‘The Old 
Oratory was an art, and was therefore based upon a theory. 
The New Oratory was a knack, and was founded upon practice.” 
The mention of oratory is significant, for it must be noted that 


_1Die Griechische Beredsamkeit in dem Zeitraum von Alexander bis auf 
Augustus, 
*Cf. Jebb, The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus, 2, C. 24. 


2 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


the whole development of which we are treating was, as Schmid? 
has clearly pointed out, through the department of oratory rather 
than through philosophy or poetry, and the terms Atticism and 
Asianism must be so understood, though the developments through 
these influences were by no means confined to one department. 
What is the period of this Asianism? Roughly speaking, from 
300 to 100 B.¢., part of which is’ shrouded in darkness,? 7 pév 
apxyaia kal didocodos pytopixy .... apEapévn pev amd THs 
’AreEdvdpov Tod Maxedovos tedeutis éxmveiv Kal papaiverOat 
Kat ONtyor, emt 5é THs Ka Huds HrALKias pLKpod Senoaca eis 
téros Hbavicbat. In accordance with this, Cicero says* of De- 
metrius: Hic primus inflexit orationem, and Quintilian:* quin 
etiam Phalerea illum Demetrium, quamquam is primus inclinasse 
dicitur, multum ingenii habuisse et facundiae fateor. Demetrius 
flourished from 320 b.c. His style was ornate, luxurious, artificial. 
History was more influenced by the school of Isocrates. The 
representative of decline in this school was the Isocratean, Cal- 
listhenes, who flourished at the time of Alexander. Omitting 
others, we find Asianism fully developed in Hegesias about 270 
B.c., whom Strabo® wrongly calls the founder of Asianism. He 
was consciously opposed to Attic Oratory, though Lysianice diction 
can be detected in his short, choppy, oratorical style.” But in 
his historical works there is more splendor, more ornamentation :° 
Tiv &upetpov Kal évpvOpov réEw, ws Ta TOANA Tov “Hynoiov 
Tod pytopos Kal Tav Actavav Kadovpévov pytopwv.? These two 
styles—the pointed and choppy and the flowing and ornate—con- 
tinued for two centuries, going from bad to worse. Omitting 
further reference to this development, we turn to the reaction in 
favor of Atticism, which seems to have begun with Hermagoras 
of Temnos about 110 B.0."” Volkmann also” furnishes abundant 


1Uber den Kulturgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang und die Bedeutung der 
Griechischen Renaissance in der Rémerzeit. 

2'V. Dionysios of Halicarnassos, De Oratoribus Antiquis I. 

3 Brutus, 38. #10..1, 80. 5V. Cicero, Orator, 92. 

6C. 648. ™Cf. Cicero, Brutus 286, Orat. 226, 230. 

8 Cf, Theon, Progymnasmata, Sp. 2. 71. 9. 

9Cf. Dion. Hal., De Compositione, 4 and 18. 

10V, Blass, Gr. Bered., p. 85. 

11 Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Romer. 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 3 


evidence that Hermagoras followed regular rhetorical divisions 
in his work instead of making use, like his immediate predecessors, 
of what came to him solely in practical experience, and that the 
Asianic style of oratory, which was without technical science, 
began to be changed first about the middle or end of the second 
century B.o. by Hermagoras, a technologist of the first rank, 
who united theory and practice in a most. praiseworthy manner. 
Schmid! claims that the reaction originated first in the island 
of Rhodes and that Apollonios and Molon tried not so much to 
oppose Asianism as to dampen the prevailing spirit of exaggeration. 
In 92 z.c. L. Plotius opened a school of rhetoric in Rome, which 
date may mark the watershed. At that time Hortensius was the 
representative of Asianism in Latin, having “combined its two 
manners, sententious point and florid declamation.” Cicero himself 
was partly under the influence of this school, but as representative’ 
of the Atticising style he may claim the credit of destroying the 
ultra Asianism of Hortensius and later of leaning toward the 
Attic. His inborn sense of strength and aptness made him strike 
a medium and avoid the extreme rigorousness of the Atticists. 
This success of the Romans forced the Greek writers of the time 
to try to shape a new prose literature. Revived Atticism proper 
may be said to date from Calvus, about 60 B.c., being completed, 
in a sense, in Dionysios of Halicarnassos and Caecilius. Of course 
there were various schools of Atticists, imitators of Thucydides, 
Xenophon, Lysias, Hyperides, Demosthenes, all of them drawing 
more or less from Greek literature as a whole or from certain 
departments of it in keeping with their style and subject of 
composition. 

This is sufficient to show that such writers as Dio Chrysostom 
and Lucian could have imitated no writer after 320 B.c. But 
there has been no mention of Ephoros and Theopompos. Recall 
the fact that Callisthenes, the Isocratean, the first historical repre- 
sentative of Asianism, was a contemporary of Alexander. Add 
to this that both Ephoros and Theopompos were pupils of Isocrates, 
that both were contemporaries of Alexander, the latter quite a 
favorite. Certainly no one could contend that Ephoros and 


1'V. note 1, p. 2. 


4 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence, 


Theopompos were exponents of the Asianic style, but we must 
recognize that within two or three decades after they flourished 
Asianism was fully developed: such changes must come about 
gradually. Dionysios of Halicarnassos’ says of Theopompos: 
ei © wbepeidey ev tovtas, éb ois pddior adv éatrovdake, THS 
Te oupTAOKHS TOV dhwvnévTav ypaypdtav Kal THs KUKALKIS 
evpvOpuias TOY TepLodwv Kal THs opmoedeias TOY OYNMATLOLOV, 
TON apeivev av hv avtTos éavtod Kata tiv dpdow. Even if 
it be denied that these two writers show signs of Asianism, the 
fact that they are ultra-Isocratean would preclude tke possibility 
of confusing their influence with the influence of Herodotos, 
though they themselves may have been largely indebted to 
Herodotos. 





CHAPTER II. 


GREEK AND ROMAN ESTIMATES OF HERODOTOS. 


Since it is true that imitation was the main element of strength 
in the Renascence, there must be a study of imitation, of the 
writers imitated, of the basis of imitation, of the degree and the 
success of imitation. Such studies have been numerous for almost 
every field of literary composition: after the revival was begun 
through the department of oratory and each of the more important 
orators had a considerable following, other styles of composition 
on other than oratorical subjects found other sources from which 
to draw. Much has been written of the influence of Homer, of 
the comic poets, of Plato. Herodotos has received little attention. 
The reasons for studying Herodotos in this connection are based 
not only upon the results to be presented in the following chapters, 
but also upon the opinions of classical writers themselves from 
the time of Aristotle through the Renascence, including the 
Rhetoricians, who, by their studies and criticisms, have given 
many points of individuality in Herodotos worthy of imitation. 
Observe a few of their statements. 


1Ad Cn. Pomp. 6. 2 Cf. Cicero, Orat. 151. 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 5 


Aristotle’s all-important statement’ is the basis of a fundamental 
imitation of Herodotos: riv dé rAéEw dvdynn elvat 7} eipopévny 
Kal TO cuvdécum piav, BaoTrep ai év Tois SiOvpduBors avaPonrat, 
) KaTeotpappévny Kal opoiay Tais TOV apxaiwy TonTav avTt- 
otpbpos. 1 per odv eipopéevn réEis 1) apxaia éotiv: ‘Hpoddrov 
@oupiov 48 icropins aobdekis: TavTy yap mpoTepov pev ArravTes, 
vov S€é ov TodXol ypavTas. 

Cicero says:? apud Herodotum patrem historiae et apud Theo- 
pompum sunt innumerabiles fabulae ; also,*® tanta est eloquentia, 
ut me quidem, quantum ego Graece scripta intellegere possum, 
magno opere delectet; and,* quid enim aut Herodoto dulcius. 
Then he particularizes:* alter (H.) enim sine ullis salebris quasi 
sedatus amnis fluit ; and,° itaque et Herodotus et eadem superiorque 
aetas numero caruit (this statement is contradicted by Quintilian). 
Add :” si quae veteres illi (H. et . .) apte numeroseque dixerunt, 
ea [sic] non numero quaesito, sed verborum collocatione ceciderunt. 

Dionysius*® has much to say of Herodotos by way of comparison 
with Thucydides. After speaking of Herodotos’ émd@ecus and 
selection, he says: 7 pwéev “Hpoddotou didbeors ev &tracw érverkns, 
Kal Tois pev ayabois cuvndopévn, Tois 5€ KaKois cuvadyodca. 
Again, 7 xaOapa tots dvopact kal Tov “EXAnrviKOY yapaKThpa 
o@tovca diddextos. Herodotos excels likewise in évdpyeca, 7dovn, 
téptris. Add: dpetdv 7) kuptwrarn To mpérov: TavTnv o‘Hpddotos 
axptBot padrXov 7 Bov«vdidns, and: Ssadépovar dé Kata TodTo 
pdrducTa adAHroV, Ste TO pev ‘Hpoddtov Kddros ihapov éoTt, 
hoBepov Sé 7d Oovevdidov, and: trpos S€ kal KadXos Kal peyanXo~ 
mpérrevav Kal TO Neyopevor idiws WAda pa ioropsKov ‘Hpddotos éyeu.? 

Strabo refers to Herodotos frequently and classes him as to 
trustworthiness with Hesiod, Homer, the tragedians. 

Pliny cites him in many places as an authority. 

Quintilian says :™ dulcis et candidus et fusus Herodotus, remissis 
adfectibus melior, sermonibus, voluptate. Note especially:” et 
historiae, quae currere debet ac ferri, minus convenissent insistentes 


1 Ars Rhetorica, 3. 9. * De Legibus, 1. 1. 5. 3 De Oratore, 2. 55. 
‘Fragment, 2. 49. 5Orator, 39. 6 Tb., 186. TIb., 219. 

8 Cf. Ad Cn. Pomp., Usener’s edition, pp. 50 ff, and De Imitatione, pp. 20 ff. 
®Cf. De Compositione Verborum, chs. 4 and 10. 

0 ©, 508. 110, 1.13. 129, 4. 18, 


6 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


clausulae et debita actionibus resperatio et cludendi inchoandique 
sententias ratio. In Herodoto vero cum omnia, ut ego quidem 
sentio, leniter fluunt, {um ipsa dcdéXexTos habet eam jucunditatem, 
ut latentes etiam numeros complexa videatur: a better judgment 
than Cicero’s. Dio Chrysostom says of Herodotos just what we 
should expect. It may be as well to quote here what he says of 
some other historians whom we shall have occasion to consider :* 
“Hpoddtm péev ovdv, ev rote evhpooivns cou Sei, peta moddHs 
novyias évTeveet. Td yap averpévov kal TO yAUKY Ths aTrayyerias 
irrovorav mapéfer pwvOdd5es padXov 4 iatopiKdy TO obyypaypa 
eivat. Tov dé dxpav Bovevodidyns éuol Soxel kal Tav SevTépwv 
@cdtroprros. Kal yap pntopuxov te wept thy amayyeXiav TOV 
AOyov exer Kal ovK advvaTos OVdEe OAiryos TrEplL THY Epunvelar, 
Kat TO pdOvpov mepl Tas AéEELs OvY OUTW Hadrov, BoTE cE 
AvTrjoat. “Edopos S€ odd pev iotopiay Tapadidwot, TO Sé 
brriov Kal averpévov THs aTrayyeXias cor OVK émLTHOELOV. 

Iucian, whom we are to study more closely, says :* “Hpoddrov 
elfe ev Kal Ta GdrAXrXa pipnoacBar Svvatov Fv: ov Twavta dnph 
doa Tpochy aito—pellov yap evyfs TOTO ye—aAra Kav Ev eK 
TOV aTrdvTwV, olov 4 KdXXOS TOV AOYyoV 7) Gppoviay avTaV 7 TO 
otxetov TH “lwvia cal TO mpooduées %) THs yvouns TO TeEpLTTOV 7 
doa pupia Kara éxeivos dua wdvta avANaBaov exer Tépa Tis eis 
pipnow érrridos: & Sé érroincev emt Tols cuyypdupact Kal @s 
TONNOD aELvos ToIs” EAAnow atracw év Boaye xatéotn, Kal eyo Kab 
gv Kal GdXos av piynoaiweOa. He speaks® further of the great 
reputation of Herodotos.* 

The Greek Rhetoricians say much more than can be quoted 
here. Note first a general remark :° povos ‘Hpodotos “Ounpixe- 
TaTos éyévero.® 

Again, a general remark upon description:’ éxdpacis éote 
AOyos Tepinynuatixds evapyas Um’ rw dyov To Syrovpevov 
... Kal map’ “Hpoddr@ 76 eidos tis UBidos Kal Tov immov TOV 
motaulov Kal Tov KpoKodeiNov Tov AiyuTtiov. 


1Qr. 18. 10, 2 Herodotus I (1. 831-832). 3Tb., 2. 

*Cf. Hist. 42 (2. 55); 54 (2. 64); Ver. Hist. 2. 31 (2. 127); Philops. 2 (3. 30); 
*Salt. 78 (2. 310); *De Domo 20 (3. 201); [Macrob.] 10 (3. 214). 

5 rep tous, Spengel 1. 262. 28. 

6 Cf. Demetrius, rep) Epunvelas (wep) ovv0érwy dvoudtwy), Sp. 3, 287. 6. 

™Theon., rpoyupvdopara (rep) exppdoews), Sp. 2. 118. 6. 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 7 

Then more particularly, beginning with Hermogenes:' ro yap 
hv Kavdatrys, wal to Kpoicos hv, cal ta tTovatta ottw pev 
> / 3.9 / \ \ n \ / \ 
elohepopeva kat opOoTnta Kal Kalapov tovet Tov OYyov Kal 

a > \ / > fa) 4 / y 
cadbh, et 5é mrAaytdoals, od ToLadTAa Eatat, olov Kpoicov dayTos 
kat Kavdatrov bvtos, ef Néryous.” 

Again:® réfis 88 yAuKela H Te THs adedeias idia Tapa THY 
kabapav pnOcica civar cal ére 4 Trowtixn. Tatty tot Kab 
< 48 j a / / N ? f \ 
Hpodoros tijs yAuKuTnTOs padicta TeppovTiKws EXpPNTATO MEV 
rar we0odors Kal évvoias, alotrep Kab nels éxyapaxTnpiCopev THY 

‘f / 4 7 2QO7 \ a > / wn & 
yAuKuTnTa, NéEet Te ExdoTy (dia pev THs apEedeias TOANAYKOD, WaTTEP 

/ > a \ / a »y \ 4 4 
édéyouer, éxeiOev 5é paddsota SiapKh oye THY yAUVKUTHTA, STL Kal 
avTny evOvs THY SLGNEKTOV TOLNTLK@S TPOELAETO ELTrELV. 

Again:* év toivuy tots Kal” ictopiay TravnyupiKois Tavnyups- 

/ , > ee / \ » yy v4 le] a \ 
K@Tatos éotw 6 ‘Hpddotos, ro & aitiov bts peta TOD KaBapod Kal 
evKpivods TOAUS éoTL Tals HOovais Kal yap Tals évvoiats wvOLKais 

\ e / \ a / a / / 
ayedov dmrdcais: kal TH NéEee TrountiKT Kéypntas Siondov, KTr. 

Again:° an example of mrapepBons : : Kpoicos jv Avdds pév To 
yévos, Trais 5é “Adudrren, TUpavves Se eOvéwy Tdv évTds “AXvoS 
ToTamov, os péov amo peanuBpins petakd Ldpwv [Te] Kal 
Iladvayovor |. 

Y 
Again:® trav pévto. K@X@V Kal KOpaToY ToLOUT@V oUYTL- 
ye pp 
/ \ >. Vd e ‘g > / 
Qewévov mpos aAANAGA ovVicTavTaL ai. TeEpiodos dvoualopevas. 
"Eats yap meplodos ciatnpa éx KOdwv 7) KompaTav edvKatacTpo- 
hav mpos THY Sidvocav THY UToKerpéevnv amnpTicpévov .. . 4 Oé 
/ € , lal ¢ b) a VA > lA 

Tis Sinpnuévn Epunvera KadeEiTal, ) Els KOAA NENUPEVN OV para 
> / / e Ge / \ ~ “a 
aXANAOLS TUYHPTHMEVA, WS 1 Exatatiov, xal Ta TreioTa TaV 


¢ / A 
Hpoddrtov, kat dros 7) apyaia taca.’ 





larep) iSe@v (mept xabapdrnros 7) Kabapay évvolwv), Sp. 2. 278.4. [These refer- 
ences are in the order of occurrence in Spengel. ] 

2Cf. Ib., 2. 278. 17. STb. (wep) yAvetrytos), 2. 362. 8. 

*Tb., 2. 421. 5. 

© Alatander, mept oxnudtwy (rep) mapeuBorjs), 3. 39. 20. The example is from 
Hdt. 1. 6. 

6 Demetrius, rep) ‘Epunvelas (wep) mepiddwv), 3. 262. 17. 

TCf., ib., 3. 264. 20; 3. 272.15; Hermog., 2. 238 ff; Aristotle, A. R. 3. 9 ff. 


8 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


CHAPTER III. 


Dio CHRYSOSTOM, ARRIAN, AELIAN, PHILOSTRATOS. 


From the reaction in favour of the old masters, the beginning of 
which was described in the first chapter, the period of the Renas- 
cence may be said to date, roughly stated, from the middle of the 
first century to the middle of the third. All the writers of any 
importance within these limits made more or less use of the old 
classics : some took one author for a model ; some imitated slavishly 
one or more as they used one style or another, as they wrote upon 
one subject or another; some thoroughly assimilated all, and so 
used them more effectively. It is not for Herodotos alone that 
we claim influence in the Renascence, but we would emphasize his 
influence, because it has not been sufficiently recognized publicly, 
and point out something of the nature of that influence. 

While Lucian has been selected as the author for most careful 
study, other great writers of the Renascence demand notice, Dio 
Chrysostom, Arrian, Aelian, Philostratos. Much of what I shall 
say of three of these writers is taken from Schmid in his Atticismus, 
and Grundmann’s’ study of Arrian has been helpful. 

Dio Chrysostom is generally admitted to be the first writer of the 
Renascence, and so may be noted first briefly. “ Dio is not exempt 
from the unreality of his age, but the thought is deeper, the moral 
conviction more thorough, than we find in the mere ‘sophist’ or 
‘rhetorician’ of the Greek Renaissance, and his orations or, better, 
‘essays’ are something more than rhetorical exercises. His style 
is clear and fluent, he is a good story-teller,? and his Atticism, though 
not the success it was once held to be, is more than respectable,” * 
Philostratos* says of him, that he has taken the best from the best. 
He is decidedly in opposition to the Asianic style in choice of sub- 
ject, in aversion to excitement and pathos, in careful cultivation of 
classic models. As a statesman he naturally attached much 
importance to the old historians, to Herodotos in particular. Dio’s 


1 Quid in elocutione Arriani Herodoto debeatur, Berlin, 1884. 
* The italics are mine. -3 Gildersleeve in Johnson’s Cyclopaedia. 
*V.S. 2. 6. 30 (Teubner). 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 9 


own estimate of Herodotos has been quoted in Chapter II. 
Cobet? says: nullum alium scriptorem Dio diligentius lectitavit 
quam Herodotum, cujus ubique apud eum sunt vestigia. Schmid*® 
says that Dio allows some Ionisms. He also says‘ that when Dio 
narrates, as at the beginning of Or. 7, he has a plain, simple sen- 
tence-position with many coordinate clauses joined by particles ; 
but when he is sententious or philosophic, he has a more periodic 
style. In this connection Schmid calls Plato a master in the use 
of particles, and so he is; but all recognize that the use of particles 
in these late writers is not wholly dependent upon Plato. It will 
be one of my main points that the use of codrdinate clauses joined 
by codrdinate particles, especially in narrative passages, is due to 
the influence of the one master in such prose composition, Herodo- 
tos. This influence is claimed for Dio, though not to the same 
extent as in some others. Being earlier than Lucian and a man of 
less ability, ina sense, Dio is naturally more mechanical in his imi- 
tation of Herodotos and sometimes copies almost literally. Some 
words that Schmid gives from the use of Herodotos are: 
atpeuivew, 1. 17. 29, Teubner Text (or. 1. 70); éxBpdocopas, 
1. 120. 31 (7. 239); jx used as Hdt. 1. 30: Térr@ todto pév 
THS TOAOS ED HKOvENS Taides Hoav Kadoi Te Kaya0oL; AevoTHp, 
1. 46. 20 (8. 113), from an oracle of Hdt. 5. 67; pvouas, 1. 51. 13 
(3. 124); cvorpopy, 1. 11. 31 (1. 61); dweprAvretcOas, 1. 322. 9 
(29. 53). Dio uses by the side of the regular forms of ofSa such 
forms as oidas, 1. 22. 7; oidapev, 1. 43. 23 (3.109), cf. Hdt. 2. 17, 

4.16; oféare, 1.371. 10 (31. 608); ofSacr, 1. 305. 5 (23. 511), of. 

Hat. 2. 43. Here, as elsewhere, enters in the question of the 
xowvn, for these forms are found in the New Testament. From 
Tuyxavom we find rérevye, etc., 1. 346. 31 (31. 569), by the side of 
tetvynke, cf. Hdt. 3. 40.6 The favorite substantivized neuter 
adjective begins with Herodotos.’ As to subject-matter, Dio has 
frequently drawn from Herodotos, examples of which will be given 
in connection with Lucian. But we may quote here the story of 


1V. Or. 18. 10. ? Mnem., N.S., 5. 98. 3 Att. 3. 13. 


* Att. 1. 178. 5 Att. 1. 145. 6 Cf. Schmid, Att. 1. 84 ff. 
"'V. Stein to Hdt. 1. 58, 86, 97, ete. 


10 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


Croesus and Alemaeon as given by the two.’ 


Note the language, 


the particles, the conjunctions, the participles. 


Herodotos. 


a / 
évdvs KO ava péyav Kal KOX- 
\ t ; 
Tov wwoXXOV KaTANLTTOMEVOS 
nm lal Ul 
tod KiOavos, KoBopvovs Tovs 
/ 
eUpioKe evpuTaTovs éovTas 
\ 
Umobnoauevos, nie és TOV 
~\ \ e 
Oncavpov és Tov ol KaTHYyé0VTO, 
> \ War \ / 
éomrecay 5€ és Twpov nyparos, 
TpaTa pev Tapécake Tapa TAS 
KYn Las TOU XKpvToD Saov éywpe- 
€ / 
ov ot KOOopvour peta dé Tov 
/ / / 
KOXTOV TaVvTa mMAnoapmevos 
xXpuaov, Kal és Tas Tpixas THs 
keparns Siatrdaas Tov WiHypa- 
Tos Kal adAXNOo AaBov és TO 
a A a 
aroma, éEnie éx Tov Oncavpod 
/ I 
ENK@V Mev mols TOVS KOMOpVOUs, 
mavtt € Tem OiK@S MAAXNOV 7 
> J lal / / > / 
avOpaT@. Tod TO Te oTOma éBE- 
Bvoto kal travta é&oyKoro. 
/ \ a 
idovta 5é€ tov Kpoitcov yéXws 
éonrle. 





Dio. 


ovdé ye Tov AaPBdvTa Trapa 
Kpoicov tiv Swpedyv éxetvov 
/ 
"ArKkpéova e&nrwcev ote Lo- 
a / 
Nov Gute AAXOs ovdels TOV TOTE 
n ’ a \ 
copav avdpav, © act Tov 
\ 
Avéov émitpévat tovs Onoav- 
\ > lf / o. % 
povs avoi~avta dépewy avTov 
¢ / 4 “ fel 
omrocov BovAEeTat TOV ypvaod. 
s,\ \ ? / 4 > , 
Kal Tov etoeNOovTa Travu avopEl- 
ws éupopncacbar THs Bacin- 
Khs Swmpeds, xuT@va Te TodnpH 
/ 
Kkatalwodpevov Kal TOV KONTO 
> / \ 
€UTANTAVTA . 1... Kal Tas 
/ e / / 4 
yvdbovs éxatépas porss &&@ 
la ef > a \ 
Babifew, dotrep avirobVTAa THY 
THs Yeuwerns @biva, yéXorTa Kal 
Oéav Kpoicw rapéyovtra Kal 


Avéois. 


Schmid? gives Plato and Xenophon first place as regards evi- 
dent influence over Dio in éxXoy) dvoydter, but compare Dio 
1. 260. 11 with Hdt. 1. 7, especially Dio 1. 277. 6 with Hadt. 1. 66, 
where the matter corresponds and an entire line of an oracle given 
by Herodotos is quoted by Dio, Dio 1. 275.6 ff., with Hdt. 1. 159, 
Dio 1. 419. 15, with Hdt. 1. 202, Dio 2. 47. 16, with Hdt. 3. 102, 
Dio 2. 213. 13, with Hdt. 1. 84. 

Arrian. Schmid does not consider Arrian in his study of the 
Renascence, possibly because Arrian has been generally recognized 
as an imitator of Xenophon; possibly because the work had been 


1 Hdt. 6. 125; Dio 2. 280. 32 (78. 425). Att. 1.147. 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 1! 


done by Grundmann. Many scholars who wrote about Arrian 
and Xenophon also claimed incidentally for Thucydides, and 
especially for Herodotos, an influence over Arrian.’ But Grund- 
mann goes further and claims more dependence upon Herodotos 
than upon Xenophon? Omitting for the present Grundmann’s 
remark about the dialect, we note: Saepius eum in rebus geo- 
graphicis laudat, ut Herodotum ab eo diligentissime pervestigatum 
esse cognoscamus. In elocutione autem Arrianum secutum esse 
Herodotum. This latter statement he discusses in three chapters : 

De verborum ubertate ac quodam genere pleonasmi, quod ei 
cum Herodoto commune est ; 

Deinde de ratione enuntiatorum conjungendorum, quae multis 
locis propius accedit ad Herodoti genus dicendi, quod AéEw 
eipouévny dicimus; quocum cohaeret quaedam elocutionis negle- 
gentia utriusque propria ; 

Denique de ionismis, qui extant apud Arrianum in usu pro- 
nominum, praepositionum, particularum ; ad quod adiciam nonnul- 
las structuras, locutiones, vocabula, quae apud utrumque singularia 
inveniuntur. 

In the first chapter numerous examples are given of different 
kinds of pleonasm: (1) the force of an adjective increased by an 
added substantive, as peyéOei wéyas, Hdt. 1.51, Arr. 5. 19. 5, 
etc.; (2) the notion of the compound verb expressed more accu- 
rately by the addition of the adverb used in composition, as 
éxhépew é&w, Hdt. 3. 16.; (3) a preposition or verb more fully 
explained by an adverb signifying the same thing, as Hdt. 4. 201. 
Gfeov éow és TO Tedyos, 4. 168. dpEduevor mpdror; (4) the same 
word repeated two or three times recalling the same person or 
thing, as Arr. 4. 22. 2 nal payns yevouevns mpds avtods Kpatepas 
vix@ow ot audi Kpatepov Th waxy, also the repetition of proper 
names, as Arr. 1. 29.1 kal ddexveirar és Kerawds meurtaios: 
év dé tais Kerawais dxpa jv, also a verb and a participle, as 
Hdt. 5. 95. "AXKaitos 6 rountis—aitos pev hevyov éxdhevyer; 
(5) add the repetition of certain particles pleonastically, as 5é, pév, 
«at; (6) in seeking to make their writing easily understood, both 


1Cf, Jahres. 34. 180 ff. for reviews of a number of these. V. Grundmann also. 
2V. reviews in Jahres, 38. 275 and Phil. Anz. 15, 223. 


12 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


Herodotos and Arrian are not afraid to use enough words in their 
sentence-building to emphasize different clauses and separate clearly 
protasis from apudosis: many particles are suitable for this pur- 
pose: ote or o§tw 87 is common after a clause, after a genitive 
absolute, as Hdt. 8. 23. arayyevravtav Sé rovtay Ta Hv otTH Sy 
dua nr(Io oKidvapéevo Taca 7) oTpaTiyn Erroe, after a conjunctive 
participle, after a parenthetic clause with ydp, after an accusative abso- 
lute, ete.: évrad@a is used in the same way, and rére in the apodosis, 
Tote 5, TO évTedOev, Tpos TadTa, Tpds TadTa 81 BV, ToLvyapOr : 
especially noteworthy here is the use of dé in the apodosis after 
personal pronouns, as Hdt. 3. 37. 65 6€ Tovtous pn dtrwTre, éyo 
dé onpuaivw, after the article used as a demonstrative; (7) the 
repetition of several words, or epanalepsis, to make the language 
plainer and more easily understood, as Hdt. 4. 76. @s azrixero 
(sc. "Avdyapous) és thy XKvOcxnv, Katadds és THY KadEopevHY 
‘Trainv (9 O€ati—rén), és TadTnv 6) KaTadds o'Avdyapots THV 
opty émeréXec: there are various kinds of this epanalepsis too 
numerous to mention here; (8) the use of short clauses to conclude 
a narrative before beginning something else, introduced especially 
by odrw 67, as Hdt. 4. 153. obtw 8) oréXXovor Sv0 TevTnKoV- 
tépous és tHv IIXatéav, also by @de; (9) note finally the use of 
the third person of the imperative, as Hdt. 1. 92. cal aepi pev 
avaOnpatwv tocadta eipjnoOw. Similar examples are cited in 
great numbers by Grundmann and can be seen on almost every 
page of both Herodotos and Arrian. 

The second chapter is but a continuation of the first: here again 
is evidence of an abundance of words, an abundance acquired in 
the same way, by the use of particles, many of them the same. 
réEts eipouévn is codrdination where particles abound, such as 
dé, Kal, Té, TE... Kal, yap, GAAA yap, odv(@v), where one clause 
seems to be joined to another as if added by chance. Details 
and examples may be omitted here, as this construction will be 
carefully studied in the chapters on Lucian. Suffice it to say, that 
Arrian is very close to Herodotos at this point. 

These two agree also in their use of anacoluthon, as Hdt. 5. 
37., where the év clause has a participle and the corresponding 
dé clause a finite verb: peta 5 cal év tH adAXn lovin TwvTO 
TODTO é7rolee, TOYS pev eEeXAUVYMY TOY TUpavvar, Tos 5é EXaBE 


Pe 9 
u P f 7 / sf ~ 
1, mee an 
\ 
Herodotos in the Greek~Renascence. 13 


tupdvvovs. The particle 7 is used in the same way, also 
ov—arrd. Again, eadem ratio est, si ad appositionem adicitur 
enuntiatum, as Hdt. 2. 134. “Poddmuis, yevenv pév aro Opnixns, 
SovAn b¢ Hv Iddpuovos. Note in this connection the expression 
Ta Te dAXa Kai used for the more common Attic d\XAa@s Te Kai, 
as Hdt. 1. 198. rods cuxéwv tpomov Oepamrevovor Ta Te adda 
Kal owixkwv—tov Kaptrov mepidéovor thot Baravnddpocor. 
Other forms of dAXos are used. Again, there is marked free- 
dom in shifting from Oratio Obliqua to Oratio Recta and vice 
versa: both Herodotos and Arrian furnish many interesting and 
varied examples. Finally, Grundmann gives a number of un- 
classified examples from both in which a sentence is left apparently 
unfinished, though it is really continued with a changed construc- 
tion, as Hdt. 8. 87. cal 4) ob« éyovca Siadpuyetv, Eumpocbe yap 
avThs hoav Adrau vées Hirvat,—édoké of TOde Trovjoas. A note 
of warning is sounded here which must be heeded everywhere, 
that all these constructions are not confined to Herodotos among 
the old masters, for Thucydides and Plato especially have them, 
one of whom has preserved many other things from the diction 
of Herodotos, and the other on account of the dialogue form is 
nearer Herodotos in his language. However, a summary of the 
evidence plainly proves that Arrian imitates Herodotos in the 
above mentioned particulars. 

Inasmuch as the title of Grundmann’s third chapter already 
cited is full and self-explanatory, and as Arrian’s [onism is 
generally recognized as an imitation of Herodotos, and as the 
important constructions which might be mentioned here must be 
discussed later, comment at this point is unnecessary. We may 
quote from Dr. Allinson,’ who studies Arrian’s Historia Indica 
in connection with Lucian’s De Dea Syria and De Astrologia: 
“Of the three pieces now under consideration the Historia Indica 
presents the fewest difficulties. As it is transmitted as genuine, 
the investigation is not complicated by the question of author- 
ship. Arrian’s Ionism also more closely resembles the usage of 
Herodotos, ... Did he intend a thorough imitation of Herodotos? 


1 Pseudo-Ionism in the Second Century, A. D., American Journal of Philology, 
7. 203 ff 


14 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


It may be assumed provisionally that he did.” ‘The motif, 
then, however superficially carried out, was a desire to revive 
the style, selection of matter, and treatment of Herodotos, as 
well as his dialect.” “But the imitation of matter is more 
successful than that of the manner.” 

Aelian and Philostratos mark the beginning of a general 
break-down. They close the Renascence. In them more than 
in any others, except possibly Arrian, is evident the influence of 
Herodotos. 

Again reserving details for the more careful study of Lucian, 
we may give here some of Schmid’s conclusions about Aelian. 
His style is the Xé£s eipowévyn, he abounds in intentional anaco- 
lutha as Arrian in his effort to copy Herodotos, like Herodotos 
and Arrian he makes use of parataxis which leads to adéXea, 
he shows dependence upon Herodotos especially by the frequent 
insertion of parentheses or supplementary additions of shorter 
syntactic independent explanations. In accordance with this 
statement we expect and find a large proportion of Herodotean 
particles, as ad\XAa yap, yap 87, yap odv, yé 5y, dé in the conclu- 
sion after foregoing conditional, relative, and temporal clauses, 
xai with such words as rdvv, wdra, ohddpa, Kdpta, etec., with or 
without the article,’ «ai between the preposition and its noun, ete. 
Attention will be called to the markéd abundance of parenthetic 
words and expressions. 

The Ionic dialect gives pleasantness, adéreca, yAvKUTNS, as 
may easily be seen by stripping off the dialect from some of 
Herodotos as Dionysius has done.” We have learned from the 
passage in Quintilian already quoted that the dialect of Herodotos 
has such sweetness that it appears to contain within it some 
latent rhythmical power. In the Renascence this effect began to 
be striven after by Arrian and was continued by Aelian and 
Philostratos. After allowing due credit to the cow for such 
forms as yivoyat, ywwooxa, etc., the general Ionic tendency as 
seen in Aelian may be rightly traced to the influence of Herodotos. 
Schmid gives as conscious Ionisms in vocalization the use of (7) 


1V. Stein to Hat. 1. 71. 
2 Dion. Hal., De Admir. Vi Dicendi in Demosth. 41. 





Herodotos in the Greek Renas | 


for (a) in Opjoca, rérnrov, Lovrdujtns, Kpnopvryerov ; (ov) for (0) 
in odds, pouvd&, ovvoua; (ec) for (e) in peckeyOAvar, petriypa, 
petrixtos; also forms of the personal pronouns of the third 
person in the function of the simple adrés, in the singular only 
oi for air@ and in the plural cfdv, cdior, chads reflexive and 
reciprocal. 

Three principal sources for words in Aelian and the Renascence 
generally are claimed: Comedy, Plato, Xenophon. Schmid says 
Aelian has taken from the poets 861 words, from Plato 78, from 
Xen. 71, from Herodotos 52, from Thue. 27, from Dem.11. This 
proportion will answer for the whole Renascence as far as lan- 
guage is concerned. A few words and expressions from Hdt. are: 
BaXropat tu én’ euavtod,’ éOeroxaxéw, éxTrAéEw TOV Hpevar, 
mous used adjectivally instead of adverbially, also imitated by 
Arrian, free use of éxefvos referring to the following, and less 
frequently dd¢ to the foregoing. 

Finally, we see how powerfully Aelian was influenced by 
Herodotos in a similar effort to produce an impression of credi- 
bility, to give clear evidence of what he writes and the source of 
his representations, to discriminate between what he knows and 
what he thinks or hears. This he strives for by frequent refer- 
ences, by accentuation of verbal information, by frequent citations, 
by appeal to evident national traditions, by intimations of criticism 
of his sources.” rémrvopas 5é kal todTov Tov AOyor, ef SE dANOKS 
€oTw ovk olda. 6 8 ody Témvacpat, éxelvo oti. 

Philostratos. Nearly everything that has been said of Aelian 
may be said of Philostratos. There is Xé£is eipouévn but with 
anacolutha of a different kind, long periods being rare; the same 
abundance of parenthetic words and expressions. lIonisms, too, 
present the same difficulties, but Schmid gives as clearly Ionic 
Secon, Nypnis, the genitives vyds and vndv, Topyein xedarn, 
Eleivis, evEewvos, Qevodduas, petNicoopat, avaTrA@oat, TAWTOs, 
etc., in addition to some of the same given for Aelian. 

He, too, has 52 words from Herodotos and uses other authors’ 
language much in the same proportion as Aelian. As Herodotean 


1V. Stein to Hdt. 3. 71. and 3. 155. 
*Cf. VH. 53. 21. 


16 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


expressions, note To wey cadées ove olda;' Syr@ocar Bovrouar;? 
éyo Onroow ;° etc. 

Special mention may be made of the use of the third attributive 
position, as és watpida thv éunv;* of the frequent use of the 
absolute nominative. Philostratos uses this construction much 
more frequently than Aelian, An example may be given from 
Arrian, who here again follows his master Herodotos: of 5¢ dud 
IItoXepwatov ox év TO OMar® TrapetaEavTo, GANA . . . . GpOious 
TounoavtTes TOUS AOXoUs IIToNEwatos mpochyev.’ Note also wpds 
with the genitive, which is especially common in Hdt. and his 
imitator, Arrian.° 





CHAPTER IV. 
Luctan.—A€é£is eipopévn. 


Lucian’s motto is:’ dvoty dé évTouw, arr’ dv Tapa TOV TadaLav 
TIS KTHTALTO, Néyeww TE SivacOat Kal mpaTTew Ta SéovTa Enro 
TOV apiotov Kal dvy? TOV KELpover. 

As the Renascence was a revival, a reconstruction, the literature 
of the period must have been more or less an imitation, but it was 
entirely possible for a gifted man so thoroughly to master the 
ancient classics, so minutely and sympathetically to acquaint 
himself with them, and so completely to assimilate them, that 
he could at the same time be following them and not be guilty 
of slavish imitation. This happy faculty combined with refreshing 
originality belongs to Lucian and makes it difficult to find definite 
trace of Herodotos or any one else in him. 

More work has been done along the line of Lucian’s depend- 
ence upon the comic poets than elsewhere. There is more or 
less mention of this dependence by all Lucianic scholars, and a 
number of special works on it. Rabasti® claims that Lucian is 


1, 229. 18. ®V. 8. 28, 29. 3Ap. 77. 24. 
‘Phil., Ap. 34. 12, V. Schmid, Att. 4. 67, and for the construction in Hdt., 
Gildersleeve’s Justin Martyr, 1 C. 6.7. 
54, 5.1. ef. Hdt. 8. 83. V. Schmid, Att. 4, 113. 
~6V, Schmid, Att. 4. 465. T Ady. Indoct. 17 (3. 114). 
8 Quid Comicis Debuerit Lucianus, 1865. 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 17 


under much obligation to the comic writers not only in material, 
but also in form and in the manner of speaking. He has a 
chapter entitled, Quomodo in rerum dispositione comicos secutus 
fuerit Lucianus; and another, Quid in genere dicendi simile 
comicos habuerit Lucianus.' Kock,? too, has treated this subject 
and by his own correct method of recovering lost verses of poetry 
from several parallel quotations, has restored a number of frag- 
ments of comic poets, some to the extent of 40 lines. “ In Lucian’s 
Timon the expressions are largely drawn from a comedy of the 
character of Aristophanes’ Plutus.” So also others. Not only 
comic poets are to be considered here, for there is also marked 
influence by the tragedians and especially by Homer. This indi- 
cates one of the many complications surrounding the study of 
Lucian’s dependence upon Herodotos, for Herodotos himself must 
be connected with the poets.’ 

As is natural, signs of Plato are abundant in the dialogue, as: 
4 & ds. There are many Platonic short expressions and questions, 
especially in Charon, as: ti dal rovto Hv and was yap ov ;° add 
evpyuet, avOpwre.© And even here we cannot get rid of the 
popular speech. 

Schmid has given us a study of Lucian’s atticisms. But of his 
dependence upon individual authors, nothing has been said except 
in a general way. Lucian’s fondness for Plato offers abundant 
results. In fact, here is another serious complication, for Plato 
was strongly influenced by both tragedy and comedy, and abounds 
in particles of all kinds.’ His works are something of a universal 
storehouse and often exert an influence that might be attributed 
to Herodotos. 


' Cf. Zeigler, De Luciano Poetarum Judice et Imitatore, 1872; also Schulze, 
Quae Ratio Intercedat inter Lucianum et Comicos Graecorum Poetas, 1883. 

* Rhein, Mus. xiim, pp. 29-59, a continuation of his article in Hermes xx1 
(1886), p. 372 ff.: for the review of these, v. Amer. Jour. Phil., 10, p. 366. 

* Cf. Férstemann, De Vocabulis Quae Videntur Esse apud Herodotum Poeticis, 
1892. 

“Kihner and Bernhardy, Wiss. Synt., p. 306 ff. 

°Cf. Luc., Charon, 6 (1. 497), 12 (1. 505): this whole section is decidedly 
Platonic in character. | 

®Cf. Plat. Protag. 330 D. 

7 Bernhardy, Wiss, Synt., p. 486. 


2 


18 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


There has been no effort to establish the influence of Herodotos 
upon Lucian, though many scholars have believed in it and have 
given hints of their belief. Croiset’ says: Hérodote me parait 
étre celui dont il a lu les oeuvres le plus assidument. On voit, 
par divers passages de ses écrits, qu’il a vivement senti et admiré 
ses grandes qualités littéraires, la beauté de son style a la fois si 
varié et si uni, cette grace ionienne qui lui est propre, la sagesse 
et le tour heureux de ses réflexions. Le souvenir trés-vif qu’il 
a gardé de certaines scénes ou de certains événements racontés 
par le grand historien atteste qu’il n’était pas moins sensible a 
la forme dramatique de ses récits et & la grandeur simple de 
son imagination. In a note he says: Je signale surtout le 
premier paragraphe de |’Hérodote, ot Lucien se prononce d’une 
maniére décidée sur Vimpossibilité d’imiter ces qualités si 
originales et si diverses dont la réunion constitue un genre de 
perfection que chacun sent, mais qu’il est difficile d’analyser. 
L’influence du style d’ Hérodote sur celui de Lucien ne me parait 
pas non plus douteuse. In a second note: On peut voir notam- 
ment dans le Charon (9-13) limitation abrégée de l’entrevue 
de Crésus et de Solon, et, dans la suite du meme dialogue, les 
allusions aux récits relatifs 4 Cyrus et & Tomyris, 4 Cambyse, & 
Polyerate. Such remarks furnish confidence for this study. 

The statement that Herodotos’ style is the perfection of Aé£cs 
eipouévn demands explanation, if we would understand his style 
and its influence. What is Xé£ss ecpouévn? To what extent does 
Hadt. excel in this style and in other styles? Does Lucian use 
the same style to any extent? If so, does he use it through the 
influence of Hdt.? 

Aristotle, in the passage cited in Chapter II, continues: Aéyo 
Sé elpowévnv 1) ovdev exer TéX0s Kal abThv, av pn TO Tpaypa 
Neyopuevov TeNELwWOH. ote Sé andis dua TO amrEetpov, TO yap TéXOS 
mavrTes BovrNovtas Kafopav. The rhetoricians could not improve 
on this. Compare with this Kriiger’s? definition of parataxis: a 
combination where clauses stand together without interdependence, 
either syndetically by means of conjunctions or asyndetically by 
mere juxta-position. Miiller® strikes the true note in describing 


' Vie et Oeuvres de Lucien, 1882, p. 94. * Sprach. 59. 
* Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur, Donaldson’s Translation, 1, p. 362. 


Me cae irate. wars 2 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 19 


the style of Herodotos: ‘“ The character of his style (as is natural 
in mere narration) is to connect the different sentences loosely 
together, with many phrases for the purpose of introducing, 
recapitulating or repeating a subject. These phrases are char- 
acteristic of oral discourse. . . . In this, as in other respects, the 
language of Hdt. closely approximates oral narrative; of all 
varieties of prose, it is furthest removed from a written style.” 
The different members are not related to one another as principal 
and subordinate, but as codrdinates, sentences with xai(re)—xai, 
pev—é, 7(7roTepov)—%, etc. Blass’ says that pure AéEvs eipopévn 
was never actually in existence, that Hdt. was on the border 
line between the accumulation process and the process of closer 
connection as seen in Attic prose. Herodotos, then, is the best 
prose representative of AXéEus efpouévn, which means that his 
narrative is marked by the purest simplicity, by the most 
natural manner of speaking, by codrdination effected by codrdi- 
nate particles, if you please, by syndetic parataxis, that his style 
has a charm and sweetness rarely found elsewhere, and not that 
his writings are deficient in the purest art. 

There are very few statements of scholars to justify a connection 
between Lucian and Herodotos in the use of parataxis. Lucian 
uses it, of course, as does every other Greek writer, more or less. 
Schmid’ says that the inclination to parataxis (a mark of adéXeva) 
is especially strong in Lucian’s Asinus. Schmid also quotes from 
Toxaris :* éwol Soxe? tpeis éxeivoe Hoav. Both of these pieces are 
spurious, but they fall within the Renascence and can be counted 
here, and Toxaris was proved spurious only by being proved too 
close an imitation of Lucian.* However, this study is confined 
to those confessedly Lucian’s, the number of which is much 
curtailed if we accept only those allowed by Bekker, Dindorf, 
Sommerbrodt and more recent editors. The Ionic piece, De Dea 
Syria, furnishes better examples of Herodotean characteristics 
than any other, but that deserves a separate treatment. Whoever 
be its author, no one can deny that it is an intentional imitation 
of Herodotos. Such a claim is not set up for Lucian in general. 


1Att. Bered. I, pp. 133 ff. * Att. 1. 422. 362 (2. 556). 
*Guttentag, De Subdito Qui inter Lucianeos Legi Solet Dealogo Toxaride. 


20 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


Though there was a conscious effort to follow the best writers, 
there was no effort to adopt any writer’s style, diction, or syntax. 
However, in the effort’ to assimilate all the earlier classics and 
his immediate predecessors and contemporaries, the -elements of 
his composition must at times appear undigested, the company 
he kept must tell. In speaking of his “use or misuse of the 
negative,” Prof. Gildersleeve’ says: “ Now, Lucian was a careful 
student of attic Greek, . . . so that it could hardly have been 
absolute heedlessness of the earlier usage; and, indeed, we find 
him every now and then reverting to the classic norm. The 
explanation is to be sought in the popular speech of the time. 
Lucian, man of the world as he was, avoided all affectation and 
followed the drift of the spoken language so far as it was not 
rude or solecistic.” This explanation must be considered in all 
departments of the study. 

We naturally look for the influence of Herodotos in narrative 
pieces, so we should expect better result from Philopseudes, True 
Histories, etc., though we are by no means confined to these. 
The beginning of a narrative passage in Charon, for example,’ 
furnishes a good example of codrdination by the use of cai: ope 
yv ToAAnY Kal Aiwynv Tia peyddrAnVv Tepippéovcav Kal dpn 
Kal totanovs ToD Kewxutov xat IlupipreyéBovtos peifovas Kat 
avOpeTous Tavu apiKpovs Kai Twas dwreovs avT@v. Similar 
sentences and sentences coédrdinated in other ways, as by pév and 
dé, abound in Lucian’s narrative pieces.? yépas pev ody ovdev 
avTo0ev kabewpapev, vuxtos 5é éreyevouévns éhaivovto nuiv Kal 
GdXNat ToANAaL vicoL TANTioV, ai pev pelCous, ai dé prKpoTepas, 
Tupl THY Xpoav TpoceorKvial, Kal AAAN Oé TLS YH KATH Kal TOAELS 
év avtn Kal totapovs éyovca Kal merdyn Kal Dras Kal pn. 
These conjunctions are supplemented by other particles and by 
participles: aroAXods b€ aiTav Kal éyvwpicapev TaddaL Trap’ hpiv 
éwpaxdres, of 6) Kal mpoonjecav Kal namalovTo ws av Kal ovvnbers 
imdpyovres, Kal TaparaBovtes tuds Kal Katakoipioavtes mavu 
AapTpas Kal SeEvas eEéviCov, THY TE GNAHV UTroboYV wEeyaNoTpETTH 


tA. J.P, p. 47. 26 (1. 497). 

5 Ver. Hist. 1. 10 (2.78); cf. Ver. Hist. 1. 8 (2. 76); 1. 25 (2, 90); 1.25 (2.91); 
1. 31 (2. 95); 1,84 (2.97); 2. 80 (2.127); 2.33 (2.129); Char. 16 (1. 612); 
Philops. 7 (3. 36); 22 (3. 50). 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. P58 


KatacKkevdoavtes Kal bmicyvovpevot Bacidéas TE Trolnoew Kal 
aatpamas.' The presence of te—xai in this sentence is another 
suggestion of Hdt. re is, of course, frequently used by others, 
but Grundmann? says that it is peculiar to Hdt. and his imita- 
tors to add a new thought or to elaborate an old one by means 
of re: radra 5é oft Twoujoact Kai OpOecior bd THs TavnyvpLos 
TéXeUTH TOD Biov aplaoTn émeyéveTo SiédeFE Te év ToUTOLGL O Beds.” 
Compare the following from Lucian: 7d & ad tovrou pnKéte 
dépov eyo thy év TO KHTEr Siartav ayOdopevds TE TH Movh unxavyy 
Tia éetnrovy.... émavaBavtes dé éml Ta vata Kai OvoarTes 
TO Hocedavu abtod mapa TO TpoTraLoV Huépas TE TpEis eTTAaVAL- 
odpuevoi—vnvepia yap nv—TH TeTAapTy atreTACVoapev.4 Note also 
in the last passage the participles and the parenthetic ydp (v. below). 
Add another sentence from Lucian: év@a 8) kal xafewpdpev 
Aspévas Te TOAKOVS Trepl Tacav aKNUaTOUS Kal pweyadrXous TrOTAMLOUS 
te Siavyeis éEvovtas npéwa és THY OdraTTapr, ért dé NELwOvas Kal 
tras Kal dpvea povotkd, TA pev ert TOV Hidvev adovTa, TONKA 
dé cal él trav KrXddov* anp Te Koddos Kal evtrvoUs TrEpLEKEYUTO 
Tv yopav.’ Again, Grundmann ® calls attention to the frequency 
of dua in this connection in Hdt., and to the use by Hdt. and 
Arrian of ra te ddXa xai for the more usual ddXos Te Kai, choi 
the latter is not bhutan Sommerbrodt, penne on dua TE 
ovv. émuTndeia édoxes Huépa Téxvns evdpyecOat, Kayo Tapededounv 
... ,' calls attention to the feats and its frequency with dua. 
As sina ble of Lucian’s use of ta te G\Xa@ Kai note the follow- 
ing: . bigidoaaan eXOovres Ta TE GARG Kal TOV ere THY 
bmutians* ;> and ... Tad Te dd\Xa erruvOavouny Kal dev etn. 
Compare a passage already cited: rv Te GAAnV btrodoyny weyado- 
TpeTH KaTacKevacavTes Kal UTLaXVovpEevor Bacidéas TE TroUjoew 
kat agatpamas. Finally, Herodotos uses dé in the conclusion 
almost constantly.? It was a rare licence with other old writers, 
but Lucian, like Herodotos, has made the licence the rule. He 


1Cf. Ver. Hist. 2. 34 (2. 130). 7P. 36, 3 Hdt. 1. 31. 
4 Ver. Hist. 2. 1 (2. 104), 2. 2 (2. 105). 5 Ver. Hist. 2. 5 (2.108). 
6 Pp. 38, 47. 7 Lue. Somm., 3 (1.5); ef. Timon 20 (1. 130). 


8 Ver, Hist. 1. 9 (1.77); 2. 20 (1. 117); ef. Hoffmann, De Particularum Non- 
nullarum apud Herodotum Usu, p. 32. 
® Cf. Sagawe, 5¢ im Nachsatz bei Herodotos, 1893. 


22 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


uses it after participles, conjunctions, relative pronouns, etc. 
émreioay TaytaTa VUE yévnTat, 6 Oé KaTaBas .. . TEpleLow EV KUKAM 
Thy oikiav.... And dcot dé Kata Tov Aaidarov éxphiaato Tots 
TTEpois . . . ovToL dé acdarors SiéoTryaav.' 

Kalinka? says that Hdt. is especially partial to yap, frequently 
using it where we should expect a relative clause. Its frequency; 
he claims, is due to parataxis. Grundmann, too, p. 42, emphasizes 
the paratactic association of yap. Its frequency is not, of course, 
confined to Hdt. among the ancient classics. Plato is very fond 
of it, but his numbers would be very much diminished if we left out 
of the count all such expressions as 7) yap, 7@s yap ov. Hoffmann, 
p. 19, goes to the extent of denying that Herodotos’ use of ydp 
is any different from the common use. But no one who has read 
Hdt., or what the best scholars have to say of him, can deny that 
the Herodotean yap is decidedly paratactic, whether it merely 
affirms a certainty or assigns a cause. If the Herodotean freedom 
and ease is lacking in Lucian, we have abundant evidence of 
codrdination by means of ydp in preference to subordination, and 
there is a constant use of parenthetic ydp, a special favorite with 
Hdt. ovd€ tov rap’ avrov dys, Tov Siadovpevov THv Keparyv 
TH Tawia, TOV KadXov, LloAvKAEiTOU yap TODTO Epyov.® Exeiv@ meV 
ovv TM pelpakio, aTacOdrw yap haoTny, dixas éeTIcaTnV: va Sé—ov 
yap éeml Kax@ TOV Gedy TadTa BovrAcvowev—Ti dvyl oiKodopodpev 
Kal avTol KaTa Ta AUTA ETLKUALVOOdYTES ETUAAHAG TA GpH. .. 
@ Eéve ’AOnvaie, cides yap pov Tov mAodTOV® . . . Eeime pol, @ 
Kpoice, oles yap te SetcOat Tov TrAWOwY TovT@Y Tov Ivor ;° 
TOUTOUS Ey OVK eHeacapunV: ov yap adixovTo. S.dTrEp OvdE ypdrrat 
Tas dices avT@v eTOApNTA TEepdoTia yap Kal amLoTa Tepl 
avta@v éyévovto.’ All these are fair examples of Herodotean ydp. 
Nor are they isolated examples. Lucian’s narrative pieces are full 
of such. To give some idea of the frequency of yap, the True His- 
tories (44 pp.) have 100 examples, or 2.5 per Teubner page; Philo- 


1 Philops. 19 (3. 47) and Imag. 21 (2. 480); cf. Philops. 15 (3. 43), De Domo 
15 (3. 198), Charid. 10 (3. 624), 17 (3. 628). 

* Dissertationes Philologae Vindobonenses, 2. 145. 

3 Philops. 18 (3.46); cf. 7b. 12 (3. 40), 15 (3. 43). * Char. 3 (1. 494). 

* Char. 10 (3. 502) (cf. Hdt. 1. 30). 6 Tb, 12 (505). 

7Ver. Hist. 1. 13 (2. 81). 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 23 


pseudes (23 pp.) has 55, or 2.4 per Teubner page. There is no 
discrimination in these figures, but I have noted no example of 
what might be called a Platonic yap. In Charon, where the 
average is even higher, 2.6, or 46 occurrences to 18 pp., one 
might cite a few instances of certain Platonic ydp, naturally when 
we consider that it is largely dialogue. In all these we find 
many occurrences of ydp closely following one another, often 5 
or 6 to the page, which is in keeping with simple narrative in 
a paratactic style. And, what is more to the point, we find 
combinations of ydp with all kinds of particles such as are 
peculiarly Herodotean, as cai ydp (9 times in Ver. Hist. part 1, 
of 22 pp.), wév yap, yap 57, etc., whereas there is a noticeable 
absence of those combinations peculiarly Platonic (7 ydp occurs 
once in Ver. Hist.). These points gather strength from the 
further point already made and emphasized by Kihner, Kalinka 
and others about Herodotos’ frequent use of ydp in parenthetic 
sentences. This practice is very prevalent in Lucian and un- 
doubtedly comes from familiarity with Hdt., as can be seen by 
a glance at the examples and by the fact that the examples 
are most numerous in narrative pieces. evpicxw dé avtobs Tov 
pev Aeovtixov ovKéTi—epOdKxer yap, as packer, driyov Tpo- 
eFeAndvOGs—adrrovs Sé cuxXVOUS. - 


A / a 
iaTopeiv eityov—ovdév yap eretrovOew a&todXoyov—erl TO wWeddos 
2 


émrel pndev adrnOes 
éTpaTrounv. . . o 6€ DaéOav, dyciv, 0 TaV ev TO Hriw KaT- 
oKovvTay BactNevs—oiKeitat yap 67) KaKeivos MaoTrep Kal 1) LeAHvH 
—Tonvy dn mpds nuds Todewed ypovov® ... ad Hs Bdap 
- NaBovres—érrereXoimres yap HOn—Kal dio Tavpous ayplous KaTa- 
tokevoartes arreTAcvoapev.« Add an analogous sentence without 
yap: émel S€ cata To SixactyHpiov: éyevounv—taphy Sé Kal o 
Atakos kat 0 Xdpwv cal ai Moipar cal ai ’Epuvies—o pév tis 
wotep Bactrevs 0 TXovTwv poe Soxel KabjaTo érideyopuevos TOV 
TeOvnfopévov Ta ovopara.° 

Ay is another Herodotean particle used by him with great 
frequency, a claim which cannot be made for the earlier Attics, 


1 Philops. 6 (3. 34); ef. the same section; ib. 14 (3. 41). 

? Ver. Hist. 1. 4 (2. 72). 3 7b. 1. 12 (2.79); cf. 16. 1. 36 (2. 100). 

* Ver. Hist. 2. 3 (2. 106). 

5 Philops. 25 (3. 53). For confirmations of this usage for Lucian, v. Guttentag, 
p. 38, and Schwidop, Observat. Luc. I, 22 ff. 


24 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


according to Kalinka, though its use does become somewhat freer, 
as in Plato. Lucian makes free use of 6 and generally joins 
it with paratactic particles, cai, yap, ete., a practice peculiar to 
Hdt. and rare in most ancient Attics. Notwithstanding the fact 
that here, too, Schmid in his study of Dio and Lucian constantly 
refers to Xen. and Plato, I make bold to claim in narrative, at 
least, a larger influence of Hdt., and for three reasons. 1. Because 
it is more frequent in narrative pieces. We find in Timon (25 pp.) 
only three examples of 57, whereas in True Histories we find in 
the two parts of 22 pp. each, 12 and 24 examples respectively. 
2. Because it is nearly always used with particles. Of the 
examples noted in 25 pp. of Plato’s Republic, less than one- 
third are combined with particles, but in Hdt. and in Lucian’s 
True Histories more than three-fourths are in combination with 
particles. 3. Because it is much more frequent in Herodotean 
combinations than in Platonic. In Plato we note such combina- 
tions as 7a@s> 67, vov 6, which are not found in Lucian’s narrative, 
nor in any of the pieces examined. But Lucian’s fondness for «ai 57, 
bev Oy, yap On is very marked, and all of these, Kalinka correctly 
says, are Herodotean. In the same 25 pp. of Plato, out of 45 occur- 
rences of 67, there are two examples of «at 67 in the combina- 
tion cai 67) cai, as against 9 examples in Lucian’s True Histories. 
kai 6) xkai is used more frequently by other writers of the 
Renascence than by Lucian, but one passage, aAXa Te TOAAG 
Tepaotia épyatopevor, kat 57 Kal él KpoKodetAwy OYovpEvoV...' , 
must be compared with a passage in the first chapter of Hdt. and 
many other passages, @\XNas Te Todas Kal b7) Kal Tod Bacidéos 
Ouyatépa. Cf. cuvndpevov dé ddrrou Te TodAOL Kai ApioTeidys.” 
Add to the combinations already mentioned év@a 57 and évtad@a 87. 

An exhaustive treatment of subordinate sentences with their 
particles would be interesting, but a few general remarks on final 
particles will have to suffice in so short a study, dealing primarily | 
with codrdination. Herodotos’ favorite final particle is iva. “The 
following is the table of the number of occurrences in Hdt. : 
(1) a 107; (2) dxws 12; (3) Sxws av 5; (4) os 16; (5) ws ay 
11.”% wa with the subjunctive largely predominates, for after 


1 Philops. 34 (3. 60). *Ver. Hist. 2. 10 (2. 110). 
3’ Amer. Jour. Phil. 4, pp. 416 ff. and 6, pp. 53 ff 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 25 


historical tenses alone the subjunctive occurs 41 times and the 
optative only 23 times. It means nothing, of course, that Lucian, 
too, has 107 occurrences of iva, for his corpus, genuine and 
spurious, is nearly twice that of Hdt., but it is not without 
significance that he shows a very decided preference for the 
subjunctive after fva. Heller’ gives fva with subj. 94 times, 
with opt. only 8 times, and a few times with indic. Special 
importance attaches to this when we compare the constructions 
of fva and #s. Hdt. uses ws sparingly. Lucian, on the other 
hand, uses it over 300 times. The first point is the predominance 
of os with opt. Out of 318 occurrences it is found with the 
opt. 235 times, and is freely used after principal tenses. Why? 
“The opt. is dying out, and when would-be elegant writers try 
to use it in final sentences they overdo it, as is notoriously the 
case in Lucian, who uses ws with opt. freely after principal tenses.’ ? 
Thus, he is not necessarily following Plato, who is partial to the 
opt., and is here in marked contrast with his own more natural 
use of iva. The second point is that of all these occurrences of 
@s, not one is found in True Histories, his model narrative of 
nearly 50 pp. Nor do we find dézws here; iva occurs twice. 
Why did Lucian prefer the subj. with f#va even after secondary 
tenses when he went to the other extreme in the use of the opt. 
with @s even after primary tenses? Why omit his elegant ds 
with opt. in his model stories? In conclusion, it may be stated 
in general terms as to Lucian’s narrative pieces that there is a 
marked preference for codrdination and codrdinate particles. 





CHAPTER YV. 
LucrIAN IN PERIODOLOGY. 


Periodology is a very broad term. Although it is claimed, as 
we have seen, that Herodotos’ style is the perfection of Aé£xs 
ecpoweévn, and although it is a fact that Aristotle and Hermogenes 
do not touch upon periods, cola, etc., except in connection with 


1 Die Absichtasiitze bei Lucian, tva, és, Sas. *A,J. P. 6, p. 68 
3 : 


26 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


NEéEts KaTecTpaypévn, still Hdt. is not wholly unperiodie and in 
any case the structure of his sentences, taking periodology in its 
wider signification, demands a word. Blass’ represents Hdt. as 
one who accumulates, as one on the border line between the so-called 
joining-on manner of speaking of the poets and old prose writers 
and the close union which was first perfected in Attic prose. The 
study of any author’s periodology should include an examination 
of (1) the kind of sentences, whether codrdinate or subordinate, 
the various kinds of each and the conjunctions used; (2) the 
extent of the sentences, whether long or short, the number of 
clauses and their arrangement; (3) the formation of sentences 
with regard to figures. Add as corollaries to be noticed (4) the 
fullness of his sentences, or de verborum ubertate, and (5) the 
general character of the narrative, whether dpOorns is preferred 
or TAayLac Ls. 

The first and most important point has been fully discussed 
in Chap. IV. On the next point, Miller, continuing the passage 
cited above from Donaldson’s translation,” says: “ Long sentences, 
formed of several clauses, are for the most part confined to 
speeches.” Schmid* says that in Lucian long sentences are the 
exception. It is impossible to count cola in Hdt. as, e. g., in 
Isocrates. In fact, as noted, the rhetoricians did not study periods 
and cola in Hdt., and no wonder when only such definitions 
were available as Aristotle’s ager (mepiodov) Sé Aéyw Thy 
povoKwrov and x@dov Séotl TO érepov popiov tavTns, and 
Hermogenes’ xc@Xov S€é éotiv amnpticpévn Sidvova. Naturalness, 
the adding on of a clause which seems to be an afterthought, 
the stringing along “rosary” fashion what Isocrates would care- 
fully subordinate, stating simply with unaffected eloquence what 
Isocrates would adorn with studied finery, is Herodotos’ chief 
charm. Yet with all this natural simplicity and apparent lack 
of orderly consecution of colon upon colon, his sentences are 
not composed of clauses thrown together incoherently, though 
there may not be formed a rhetorical climax or an Isocratean 
period. These same conditions prevail in Lucian’s narrative. 
We cannot count cola and clauses in his sentences. He has 


1 Att. Bered. 1. 136; cf. 1.133 for a more detailed analysis. 
71, p. 362. 7 Att. 1, p. 422. 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 27 


not the Isocratean periods. He has undeniably, however, the 
“rosary” effect, if not to the same extent as Hdt. There are 
whole passages and numberless sentences that remind us of Hdt., 
though, as is to be expected, much of the Herodotean charm is 
missing. A few sentences must suffice: jv dé nal tyvn dvo 
wAnotiov éml métpas, TO pev TrCOptaiov, TO Sé EXaTTOV" éepol 
Soxeiv, TO wev ToD Avovicov TO wrxpoTtepov, Oarepov Sé “Hpaxdéous :* 
Tote 5&€ Tov TroTamwov SiaTrepdoavtes, 4 SvaBatos Hv, eVpopev 
apTéXov Yphua TepdoTiov? TO ev Yap amo THs yhs, 0 oTéNexXos 
auTos evepyns Kal Taxus, TO 5é avw yuvaixes hoav, doov éx 
TOV Nayovev aravTa éyovaa Tédera:” av pev odv és TO. dpéap 
KaTaBn Tis, axove. TaVT@V TOV Trap Hiv ev TH YH NEeyouévor, 
éav 5é és TO KaTOTTpOY aTOBAXéWy, Tdcas pev TONES, TaVTAa Se 
€Ovn opa watrep épertas Exdaotous: TOTE Kal Tods OiKEloUs éyw 
eOcacdunv Kal wacav thv tatpida, et Sé KaKeivor éue Edpor, 
ov éyw TO aapanrés eizreiv. The last sentence is very suggestive 
of Hdt. ézupévovtos Sé Tod mvetpatas hépew ov Suvdpevor 
Totovoe TL émrevoncoapev—oO O€ THY yvoOpunv atrodnvduevos Hv 
LKivOapos—oxkdrpartes yap é&v TO HOaTt omnratov péytoTov év 
TOUT@ éuEivaper Iuepas TpLdKoVTA, TDP avakaiovTes Kal oLTOUpEVOL 
Tous ixOds: etpicKxopev Sé avTovs avoptTTovTes.* 

Herodotos’ skill in the use of particles is reinforced by an equally 
skilful manipulation of the participle. By means of these two he 
adds variety, freshness, and simplicity to his narrative and avoids 
the monotony of cola after cola with such Isocratean regularity : 
e. g. Tapa TovTwv Hpaxneidas éritpapbértes Exxov Thy apynv éK 
Geomporriov, éx Sovrns Te THs lapddvou yeyovores Kat ‘Hpaxréos, 
dpEavtes pev él Svo Te Kai elKoot yeveds avdpav, érea TévTe TE 
kal TevTakoola, Tals Tapa TaTpos exdEeKdpEvos THY ApXnV, wexpL 
Kavédatrew tod Mipoov.’ “ Herodotos, . . . while he seems to be 
on the whole polymetochic, shows a remarkable variation from the 
polymetochic, 1.123, where Harpalus sends the hare to Cyrus, 
down to the oligometochic, 3. 41-3, the story of the ring of 
Polykrates.”°® “It is no accident that we find in the Vera Historia 


1Ver. Hist. 1. 7 (2.75). * Ib. 1. 8 (2. 76). 

8 7b. 1. 26 (2. 91); ef. 1. 31 (2. 95). 

* Ib, 2.2 (2.106); cf. 2.17 (2. 114); 2. 20 end (2. 118); 2. 41 (2. 134); and 
many others. 5 Hdt. 1. 7. 

Amer. Jour, Phil. 9. 150. 


28 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


of Lucian now a series of finite verbs and immediately afterwards 
a eumetochic sentence, to be followed by ametochia and then again 
by eumetochia.”! In the light of these facts we are almost forced 
to the conclusion that Lucian is an intentional imitator of Hdt. in 
narrative. Not only has he used paratactic particles as Hdt., and 
produced the “ rosary ” effect by means of participles, but he has 
combined the two and, what is more to the point here, has changed 
from one to the other in successive sentences or even in the same 
sentence. One feels that there is an effort to tell a story as the 
model story-teller.? A few sentences from Lucian will illustrate 
this point: ypdde toivuy repli ov pyre eldov unre Errabov unre Tap 
adnrwv érrvOouny, ete 5é pnt dros dvT@V unTE THY apynY yevér Oat 
Suvapévav. 610 det Tovs évTuyydvovtas undapas muctevew avtois.* 
Immediately after this remarkable statement he begins his narra- 
tive: opunbels ydp mote amo ‘Hpakdciwv otnrov Kal adels és 
TOV éomrépLoy @KEavoV Ovpi avéum TOV TAODdY érrocovpnv. Notice 
the striking difference between the two sentences and the sudden- 
ness of the transition. The second one is followed by an ametochic 
sentence codrdinated by wai. Again: éxeiev Sé dpracbévtes 
avéup ohodp@® tpitaio és Tov w@Keavov amnvéxOnpuev, &v0a TO 
KHTEL TepiTUYOVTES Kal avTavdpor KaTaTrobévTes Svo rpeis povor 
TOV GdXwv arobavovtwv écwHOnyev. Odrpavres 5é Tods ératpous 
kal vaov TO Llocedavu Serpdpevor Tovrovi Tov Biov Cpev, \dyava 
pev Kntrevovtes, ixOds 5é crTovpevoe Kal axpodpva. ord 8é, 
@s opate, » Urn, Kal pv Kal aurrédXous exer ToAAdS, ad Ov 
HouaTos olvos yiyvetat: Kal THY mnynv 6 tows eldeTe KaAXioTOU 
Kal \uxpotatou vdatos. evvyv S€ aro Tov dUANOY TroLodpeba 
Kal Top apOovoy Kaiopev Kal Gpvea 5é Onpevopev Ta eiomeTomeva 
kal Cavtas ixOds aypevopuev eEvovtes ert Ta Bpayxia Tod Onpiov, 
év0a Kal Novopeba, oTrorav ériOvpnowpev. 

Under figures, only the Gorgianic demand attention here, because 
they are the ones that play an important réle in a study of the 
periodic structure of sentences. These figures, though they were 
in existence at the time of Hdt., were just then being developed 


1b, 147. 

*V.the entire article of Prof. Gildersleeve in A. J. P. cited above, and his 
introduction to Pindar, p. cix. ; 

3 Ver. Hist. 1. 4-5 (2. 73). *Ib. 1. 34 (2. 97-98). 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 29 


by his contemporary, Gorgias, but their perfected development 
was not reached until Isocrates. Dr. Robertson,’ however, 
has shown that Hdt. does use such figures, though sparingly. 
In the narrative portions of the sixth book we have the 
summary: antithesis 14; parison 4; paronomasia 19; pare- 
chesis 1; repetition 62. In my first chapter I tried to show 
that it was the ultra-Isocratean spirit that led to bombast and so 
to decay. We, therefore, naturally expect that the revival from 
this decay would present a literature with fewer Gorgianic figures. 
Such is the case. Lucian himself warns against such figures: 
Kal 0 pytap 5é od amo0ou THY pnudTov Thy ToravTnY aTrEepayTo- 
Noyiav Kal avTiOécers Kal Tapic@cets Kal Tepiddovs Kal BapBa- 
piopovs Kal Ta GAXa Bapy TOV AOyov.? That these figures do not 
abound in Lucian is for us merely a negative argument excluding 
certain influences, and needing support from other more positive 
arguments. It would be absurd to claim that Lucian took his 
few Gorgianic figures from Herodotos’ still fewer, but their 
absence bespeaks a style of more simplicity, less periodic, more 
nearly approaching the Herodotean style, which is valuable enough 
when strengthened by positive Herodotean indications, such as 
have been given. The following passage is a fair sample of 
Lucian’s repetition and paronomasia, which may include pare- 
chesis, and neither of them occurs even imperfectly more than 15 
times in the first part of Vera Historia: tovray 8 of pév 
apurroTokorar él yrurArOv peydrov immdavovrar.... péyeOos Sé 
Tov urAr@v dcov SHdexa édépavtes.. One other short passage 
may serve to illustrate his use of parison, paromoion, and homoio- 
teleuton; and there are very few examples in his narratives as 
good as this one; zodXol pev CovTes HALoKOVTO, TOAKOL Sé Kal 
avnpoovTo.* 

In his chapter, De Verborum Ubertate, Grundmann very 
properly warns against being too dogmatic in claiming Herodotean 
influence when certain peculiarities of language or construction 
found in his works exist also in most, if not all, of the best Attic 
writers. But he claims with equal propriety the right to assert 


1The Gorgianic Figures in Early Greek Prose. — 
? Dial. Mort. 10 (1. 374). * Ver. Hist. 1. 13 (2. 80). 
47b, 1.17 (2. 84). 


30 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


Arrian’s dependence on Hadt. along this line, de verborum ubertate, 
whenever the writings of the two abound in identically the same 
characteristics, which others use more sparingly. He says, e. g., 
that such expressions as peyéOei péyas and mA7xOei péyvoTos, ete. 
go back to Hdt. Schmid’ is authority for the statement that such 
expressions were common among writers of Lucian’s time, being 
especially frequent in Aelian. Note the following from Lucian : 
ada Kal TOAL dn ev TH MecoTrotapia wKice peyéber TE wEyioTNV 
Kal KadXloTny, and oixov Oé Tis iO@v peyéeBer péyloTov Kal KaArEL 
kadrdXoTov.2 Grundmann® further points out that Hdt. and Arrian 
often repeat a preceding thought and by means of év oppose it to 
what follows. Lucian follows the same practice, but in a little 
different way. He summarizes or confirms or reasserts in a short 
additional clause added often by 6é or some similar particle, or by 
ovTws, or without any particle. In Philopseudes* he sums up a 
long sentence: ottws arora Siunyeiro. Again, after a marvelous 
story which reminds one of the Bible: tocodrov  ér@dy édvvnOn 
Kal 6 ornritns éxeivos AiOos. In the next section, after more 
marvels: ézrel 6¢ cuvnric Onoar, évedvance pev avTa 0 BaBvrA@vios, 
Ta 8¢ avtixa para KatexavOn aravta bo TO hvonpatt, Hueis Sé 
éOavydtouev, where the very last clause seems very natural to a 
reader of Hdt. More nearly approaching Grundmann’s illustra- 
tions is a summary in Ttiue Histories: tovattn pév cai 0 PaéOav 
érnes TapacKery.’ Again: tovavTn pev 7) yopa éotiv: buds Se 
xp?) opav Oras’ ....; and radta pev Ta KaTa THY VnTOpaXiay 
yevoueva,® the conclusion of the first part. Lucian makes use of 
TrowovTa~ Y TogovTos in such summaries more than Hdt., who 
seems to prefer o¥tw or ottw 67, évOadra 57, or the repetition 
of the verb. After a «scription of the terms of a peace 
between the inhabitants» °' the sun and the inhabitants of 
the moon, Lucian says: ‘tovaditn pev } eipnvn eéyévero” In 
like manner he concludes a description of food and its prepara- 
tion: cit@ pev 8) tTpéhovtas TovodT.'” Such conclusions with 


1 Att. 1. 812 and 418. 


2 Hist. Conscrib. 31 (2. 42), De Domo 1 (3. 190). 3p. 35. 
“5 (3. 34). 511 (3. 39). 61. 16 (2. 83). 
71, 36 (2. 99). 3 81, 42 (2. 104). 


° Ver. Hist. 1. 21 (2. 86). 10 7b,, 1. 28 (2. 88). 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 31 


forms of oiros are not hard to find. At the end of Odysseus’ 
letter to Calypso we find: tadra pév édr)Xov 7) érictody, Kal trepl 
Hav, Oras EevicOdpev.' At the close of part two, the whole of 
the True Histories is summarized in six lines beginning tadra pév. 
The significance of such examples is materially heightened by their 
remarkable frequency in all of Lucian’s narrative, especially True 
Histories. 

All the foregoing evidence both affirms and is strengthened by 
the fact that Lucian’s style resembles the style of Hdt. in its 
straightforward method of telling a story. There is not only 
op0orns pure, the use of the nominative which carries with it the 
use of the finite verb usually in the indieative in narrative, but 
also the use of the participle not in the genitive absolute con- 
struction nor in any oblique case, to any extent, which is the sign 
of wraylacuos connoting mepsBory and ceuvorns.? The rhetori- 
cians are construed as believing that such a use of the participle is 
to be classed under tAaytacpds along with the genitive absolute, 
but it appeals to me more as a pleasing variety of dp0drns, if 
opOorns means straightforwardness. Granted, as the rhetoricians 
contend, that the participle, whatever its construction, is a oyjma 
mepiBAnre«or, is one of those forms that bring about repsBory, we 
still contend that both Hdt. and Lue. secure the effect of straight- 
forward narrative by the use of the partic ple as well as by the use 
of the finite verb, the alternation of eumetochia and ametochia in 
both authors having been previously noticed. As an example of 
opOorns in Luc.: atrn pév ) Tod Evdvupiovos Sivamis Hv. oKevi 
dé mdvrav 1) av’TH Kpdvn ev aro TOV KUdpaV weyddor Ap Tap’ 
avTois of Kvapor Kal KapTtepot’ Oapaxes 5é horidwTu TavTes 
Oépysvor TA yap NéTrn TOV Déppov cuplodrrovTes TroLvodyTaL Oopa- 
Kas: appnKtov © éxel yiyverat TOD G6. 9v TO A€tros WoTrEp KEpas* 
aomides 5é cal Eidn ofa ra “EXXnvixa.2 Compare with this the 
beginning of the narrative in True Histories: opunOels yap morte 
amo ‘Hpakrelov ornrav cal adels és Tov éxméptov @KEavov ovpio 
avéw@ Tov ToODdY errocovpnv ;* and again: .... mpoceveyOévtes Se 
avTn Kal opptodpuevor améBnyuev, ericKxotTrouyTes Sé THY Yopay 


1 1b., 2. 35 (2. 181). 2Of, A. J. P. 1x, 140 ff. 
* Ver. Hist. 1. 14 (2. 81). 41.5, (2.78). 


32 Herodotos in the Greek Renascenée. 


evpiaKopev oixovpevnv....' Allowing that the effect of the parti- 
ciple is to retard the movement somewhat in these and hundreds of 
similar passages in Luc.and Hdt. does not detract from the simplicity 
or clearness or the straightforward method of the narrative. It is 
in a sense 6pOdTns connoting Kafaporns and adéreva; and both 
Hdt. and Luc. abound in this general character of narrative inter- 
changed with pure dpQo77ns, to the exclusion of wrXayvacpos, or 
dependency, or genitive absolute. Their codrdination of participles 
is in keeping with their codrdination of particles. 





CHAPTER VI. 
Luctan—His LanauaGe, Constructions, MATERIAL. 


This chapter might easily constitute a book in itself with three 
chapters, one each for language, constructions, and material, but 
lack of space forbids. 

Notwithstanding the fact already noted that comedy, Plato, and 
Xenophon are the principal sources of the Renascence for words, 
Schmid gives 85 words which he claims Lucian has taken from 
Herodotos and other [onic writers not including Hippocrates. 
There are besides 300 words in the Lucianic corpus which have 
been used by Hdt. in common with one or more of the standard 
writers, and more than 200 that have been used by Hdt. in com- 
mon with the poets, mostly Homer and the tragedians. Take, 
e. g., three uncommon words in Somn.’?: Bdvavoos kai yeipovakt 
Kat atroxetpoBiwtos. ‘The first one is used by Soph., Ar., Xen., 
Plat.; the second by Hdt.,* Soph. as an adj. in a fragment, Euri- 
pides in another sense in a fragment; the third by Hdt.* and Xen.? 
As in the case of these last two, so in many other cases of the 500 
taken from Hdt. and others in common, Hdt. should be placed 
first because the word is used by him more prominently or more 


11,10 (2.77). 29 (1. 14). $1, 95 and 2, 141. 
43, 42, 5 Qyr. 8. 3. 37. 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 33 


frequently. WV. Du Mesnil’ for certain unusual forms. He gives 
ovdauoOr for ovdapyod” as Lonic; also ypynodunv for npynOnv* 
as used only by the poets and Ionic writers and once by Aes- 
chines. But this department is the least fruitful for the whole 
Atticismus. 

Only a few unusual constructions will be mentioned, but enough 
to show Lucian’s great familiarity with Hdt. and the extent to 
which he was influenced by Herodotean peculiarities. Schmid * 
and Du Mesnil® call attention to the joining of an accusative with 
an article as a Herodotean peculiarity among the ancients and a 
Lucianic peculiarity among the later writers: do71s obTos 0 Tpoct@V 
ear, 0 Kepacpopos, 6 THY TupLyya, 6 Adotos ex Tov oKENotD ; ° TOOEV 
Hiv emeccexuKAHOncay ovTos 7) 6 MiOpns éxeivos 6 Mido 0 Tov 
kdvovy Kal THy Tudpav ;’ ) BaBurwv Sé cou éxeivn éotiv } evrrupyos 
» TOV péyay TrepiBorov.® Du Mesnil agrees with Matthiae 427b in 
explaining the phenomenon by the omission of &ywv. In the Hero- 
dotean examples the article seems not to be expressed, though the 
éyav is to be supplied in the same way: Tovs dé Epcevas (Bods) 
KaTaptacovar ExacTot év Tolot TpoagTElolcL, TO Képas TO ETEpOV 7 
Kal aupotepa wrepéyovra, sc. eyovTas. 

mepi with dat. for vepi with acc. is rarely used by the ancients 
except the Ionic writers and the poets. V. Du Mesnil’ and Lund- 
berg." The one says it is frequent in Hdt., the other in Lucian: 
atroKuALopevous él Keharny éviots Kal TOAAA TpavpaTa NayBa- 
vovTas TEpt Tpayeiats Tais TéTpats.” 

Merriam * says that ‘the third attributive position is a favorite 
with Hdt. and his admirer, Lucian, but not very common in the 


. Grammatica, Quam Lucianus in Scriptis Suis Secutus Est, Ratio cum Anti- 
quorum Atticorum Ratione Comparatur, pp. 4-6. 


2 Hermot. 3. 1 (1. 771). 8 Dial. Mer. 7. 4 (3. 298). 

41,234, 5p. 9. 6 Bis. Acc. 9 (2. 801), ef. ib, 19 (2. 814). 
7 Deor. Cone. 9 (3. 583). 8 Char. 23 (1. 522) ef. ib. 14 (1. 509). 

9 Hdt. 2. 41; cf. 2. 184, 4. 71, ete. Wp, 38. 


" De Ratione Herodotea Praepositionibus Utendi a Scriptoribus Atticis Diversa, 
1869, p. 26. 

Cf. Luc. Rhet. Praec. 3 (3.4); 1b., 18 (3. 20) ; De Domo 7 (3. 194) ; De Hist. 
Conscr. 23 (2. 31), ete. 

8-V. note to Hat. 6. 22. 3. 


4 


34 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


best Attic.” The original authority of this note! has modified his 
statement ? after a further examination of Lucian. The only place 
in which he uses the third position with any frequency at all is, 
as we would expect, the narrative passage, True Histories. Here 
there are a dozen examples and about the same number of the 
second position, the first largely predominating everywhere. 

Schmid * calls attention to Lucian’s not infrequent practice of 
throwing back the accent of dissyllabic prepositions, especially 
mepi. Of the ancient prose writers only Hdt. and Plato follow 
this practice to any extent. It cannot be claimed that Lucian 
followed either of these or the poets, but two facts are interesting, 
that when he calls up Hdt.* and makes him talk Ionic, there is an 
anastrophie zrépz, and that in the Syrian Goddess, which I have 
tried to establish in another place® as a Lucianic composition, wépu 
is found no less than 15 times. 

Sommerbrodt® remarks that ws for date is to be found in Hdt. 
and the Attic poets. It is frequently found in Lucian. 

Lucian takes another liberty with Attic prose, the use of od8é for 
xat ov, for which his only authority could be Hdt. or the poets : 
kal vov ov Tov KLOap@mdov .... dvarnaBav éEevnEw és Taivapov.... 
ove Tepletoes KAKMS VITO TOV VavTa@Y aTroArUpevov.. The Syrian 
Goddess has several examples of this also. 

It is possible that at times Lucian tried to cover up his tracks, 
so to speak, and was intentionally at variance with the writers of 
whom he was fond. In Somn.,® where the Teubner text reads @s, 
Sommerbrodt changes to eis on the strength of similar passages in 
Hadt.,° where in each case eds is used with persons, as here, for the 
more usual zpos or ws, and also as here after the same word, 
avTomoneiv. 


1 V. note to Prof. Gildersleeve’s edition of Justin Martyr, 1, C. 6. 7. 

* Amer. Jour. Phil. 6. 262. | 

31, 284, * De Domo 20 (3. 202). 

5 Studies in Honor of B. L. Gildersleeve. 

6 V. note on Luc. Char. 23 (1. 521): ds - - wh vewrAnjoa. 

™Dial. Mar. 8. 1 (1. 308), cf. Rhet. Praec. 16 (3. 17); Dial. Meretr. 7. 3 
(3. 297); Gall. 14 (2. 724); Prom. 1 (1. 23); ete. 

8 12 (1. 18). 

93. 154, 156, 160. 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 35 


Du Mesnil’ has called attention to the expression én trou ANéyou 
in Lucian. This pleonasm is frequent in Hdt.? 

The expression od dpovtis ‘Immoxdeidn used by Hdt.? passed 
into a proverb and is used by Lucian. ) 

Lucian warns his readers at the opening of the True Histories 
that not a word he is to utter has any truth in it, so that he can 
be free from that deception and untruthfulness exemplified in 
previous story-tellers who expected people to believe their every 
word. But he seems to forget this as he becomes interested in the 
story and makes a number of statements that sound familiar to 
readers of Hdt.; e. g., rather than make a plain statement, he 
writes: éXéyovto 5é kal amo Tov bTrép THY Karrasokiay aotépwv 
Heew .... ToUTous éyw ovK COeacdyunv.. And in the same section : 
TepadoTtia yap Kal amiota Trepl avToy édXéyovTo. Again: To wévToL 
TAHV0s avTav ovK avéypawa, wy To Kal Arvctov SoEn, TocodTov Hv.® 

Many interesting verbal correspondences and other points of 
interest might be cited, but no further mention of such will be 
made except in connection with the treatment of subject matter. 
Lucian and the Renascence in general had a great deal of what we call 
the classic literature, how much, we cannot tell, from which to draw, 
so that we must not always trace to Hdt. as a source what is com- 
mon property. We can, of course, use here what is peculiar to 
Hdt., especially when other similarities exist. In fact, in view of 
the preceding arguments, that Herodotos’ influence upon Lucian 
in the sphere of story-telling is especially marked, we have more 
right to claim Hdt. as the original source even of many stories 
found elsewhere. Many of the references given are only sugges- 
tions of comparisons, while those given more in detail furnish 
stronger evidence. The same may be said of Dio Chr. to whom 
parallel references are given. I have followed the order of Hadt., 
and from this point put all references in the text. 

To. V. Hdt.1.1,1.5,2.4. Cf. Luc., Deor. Dial. 3 (1. 207); 
Mar. Dial. 7 (1. 305-307) ; Salt. 43 (2. 293). Cf Dio (Teubner 
text) vol. 1, p. 100, 1. 8 (Oration 11. 40). 


1 p. 58, note on Luc. Dem. Enc. 15 (3. 502). 

21.118; 3. 156; 5. 36, 49. V.Stein to the first passage. 

36.129; cf. Luc. Herc. 8 (3. 86); [Philopatr.] 29 (3.618); Apolog. 15 (1. 724). 
Each of the last two ends a work. ‘Ver. Hist. 1. 13 (2. 80). 

*Ib., 1.18 (2. 84) ; of. ib., 1. 25 (2. 90) and Philops. 16 (3. 44). 


36 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


Europa. V.Hdt. 1.2. Cf. Luc., Mar. Dial. 15 (1. 325-327) ; 
D. D.S. 4 (8. 453). It is interesting to note the exact correspond- 
ence of the account in the D. D. S. with that of Lucian, even 
though it is a little abbreviated. 

Croesus. Lucian has drawn largely upon Hat. for all he has to 
say about Croesus; in fact, the correspondence is too evident to 
admit of discussion. Hdt’s. account of Croesus is given, for the 
most part, in the first book, chapters 7-94. Chs. 8-12 tell how 
his house came into power. Cf. Luc. [Asin.] 28 (2. 597). Cf. 
Dio 2. 214. 18 (Or. 64.27). General references to Croesus’ great 
wealth are: Luc., Tim. 23 (1. 137); Navig. 26 (8. 265); Mort. 
Dial. 2. 2 (1. 337). The famous dialogue between Croesus and 
Solon, Hdt. 1. 30-33, has a very close parallel in Lue., Char. 
9 ff. (1. 501 ff.). To Charon Hermes points out Croesus in his 
palace at Sardis talking with Solon the Athenian. In general, 
there is very little difference between the two accounts. Hdt. 
makes Tellos the first in happiness, while the story about Cleobis 
and Biton is second. Lucian reverses the order, but assigns the 
same reasons in each case as Hdt. 


Lnucian. 
a s 
® Eve “AOnvaie, cides yap 
you TOV TAODTOV Kal TOs On- 
“4 ” / 
caupovs Kal do0s Gonpmos Kpvaos 
> e lad ‘\ \ 7 
é€oTi npiy Kal THY AadAAHY 
/ ? / / 
TONUTENELAV, ELTTE fol, TLVA 
Wyn TOV amavtav avOpwTrwv 
9S 
evOalLoVeTTATOV EVAL. 


Térros 6 AOnvaios ds ev Te 
éBiw Kal améBavey vrrép Tis 
Tart pLoos. 





Herodotos. 


/ 

KeXevaavTos Kpoicou Tov 20- 
Nova VeparrovTes TEpLHyov KATA 
tovs Oncavpovs, Kal émideix- 
vucav TavtTa éovTa peydda TE 
Kal OABva .... elpeto 0 Kpoioos 
rave Eeive "AOnvaie... 
9 v7 b] / , ae 
av twepos érreiperOai wos émrnnr- 


. vuV 


Oe, ef twa dn tavTwv eldes 
OABiworatov. 

® Bactned, TerAXov AOnvaiov. 
TéAA@ .... TOD Biov ev HKovTt, 
@s Ta Tap Huiv, TENEUTH TOD 
Biov Aapmpotdtn érreyéveTo" 
yevouevns yap “A@nvatoiot pa- 
XNS Tpos Tovs aaTuYyElTOVAaS eV 
’"EXevoiv, BonOnoas Kab Tpo- 
Tv Tomoas TOV ToEpiov 
amréQave Kad\ALoTa. 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 37 


0 SevTepos Sé Tis av ein; 


éy@ O€ wy ofa KrXéoBw Kal 
Bitova hyotpat evoatpmoverra- 
Tous yeverOaL, Tovs THs Lepeias 

val Pa | / 
matoas Ths Apryoev. 

gnatv ovTos Tovs dua TP@NV 
amoQavévtas, érel THY pnTépa 
¢e 4 ly » AH,” n 
wroduvres eiiKvcay él THS 
aTrnvns aX pL Tpos TO lepov. 

y hehe Ul 9 4 BA 

éyo O€, @ Ka0appa, ob cot 
S0x@ evdaipor eivar ; 

ovderrw oda, @ Kpoice, Hv pn) 

\ \ / > / le) 7 
mMpos TO TENOS Adikyn TOV Biov: 


érreip@ta, Tiva SevTepov per 
> “ B] 
éxeivov loot ; 
/ , 
KxXé0B8iv re cal Bitova. tov- 
\ a 
Totatyap €ovavyéevos Apyeiotoe. 


éce mavTws THY pnTtépa 
avtav Sevryei KousccOAvar és TO 
EDOU «26 
thy CevryAnv elXKov THY dakar, 
emt THs audéns S€ ode @xEETO 
4) NTN. 

® Ecive’ AOnvaie, 4 Sé juerépn 
eVdarpmovin oT@ ToL aTréppiTrTat 


UTOOUVTES AUTOL UTO 


> \ / e/ > % 3 / 

és TO UNdEeV, WOTE OVE LOLWTEWV 

> n > / e / > / 

avdpav akious huéas érroinoas. 
> lal / \ yy / BA 4, 
éxeivo bé, TO elped pe, OV K@ 

, 
ae eyo Neyo, Tply dv TEeNEUTH- 
fal Ny a 
CaVTA KANDS TOV aiava TUBw- 





Lucian next follows Hdt. in giving the history of Croesus’ 
children. With Hdt. 1. 134 and 1. 43 cf. Luc., Jup. Conf. 12 
(2. 635-6). Both make mention of the two sons of Croesus, one of 
them xa¢és according to both. V. Hdt. 1.34; Luc. Pro Imag. 
20 (2. 500); Gall. 25 (2. 741). 

Again, we have strikingly similar accounts of the answers given 
to Croesus when in his jealousy'and alarm at the success of the 
Persian power he sent messengers to various oracles. With Hdt. 
1. 47, and 1. 48 cf. Luc., Jup. Conf. 14 (2. 637); Jup. Trag. 30 
(2. 676). Also Hdt. 1. 43 with Luc., Jup. Conf, 14 (2. 637). 

Among many other gifts sent to win the favor of the Delphian 
oracle mentioned by Hdt., 1. 50-51, was a large amount of gold 
which was made into half-plinths or bricks, jucrdivOca. Here, 
then, is where Lucian gets sections 11-12 of his Charon. Cf. Jup. 
Trag. 30 (2. 676.) 

Again, Hdt., 1. 75, and Luc., [Hipp.] 2 (8. 68), give similarly. 
the plan by which Thales the Milesian enabled Croesus to lead his 

5 


38 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


army across the river Halys. Cf. Luc. Jup. Conf. 14 (2. 637) and 
Jup. Trag. 20 (2. 664), 43 (2. 691). 

Once more, the story comes from Hdt. about the battle with 
Cyrus, the defeat and capture of Croesus, the penalty adjudged 
him, and his marvelous escape by calling upon Solon and later 
upon Apollo. V. Hdt. 1. 86; cf. Luc, Char. 13 (1. 508): 
pepvnoetar & ody puKpov UaTepov TOD Yorwvos, OTav avTov Séen 
adovta él tTHy Tupav vo TOD Kupov avayOjvar ... . ef. Gall. 
23 (2. 737). 

The only reference of importance from Dio is 1. 164, 25 (Or. 
10. 26), where he is in full agreement with Hdt. in summarizing 
the history of Croesus in connection with the Persians. 

Cyrus. His history begins Hdt. 1.107. Cf. especially 1. 122: 
KatéBarov hati ws éxxeiyevov Kodpov ciwv é&éOpe wre with Luc. 
Sacr. 5 (1. 530): o Ilépons Kipos 6 mpdtepov vo Tis Kuvds. 
With Hdt. 1. 123-130, relating especially to Astyages, cf. Dio 
1, 265. 21 (Or. 15.22); 1. 312. 16. (Or. 25. 5); 2. 292. 18 (Or. 
80. 12). Cyrus’ connection with Babylon is given, Hdt. 1. 178- 
200. Cf. 1. 103, 106; 2. 150 for mention of Nineveh; cf. Lue., 
Char. 13 (1. 521-2) and Dio 1. 73. 27 (Or. 4. 53). Hdt. 1. 214 
gives an account of Cyrus’ death, how he was defeated by the 
Massagetai, how Tomyris, the ruler of the Massagetai, filled a 
skin with human blood and put Cyrus’ head in it: doxov dé 
TrAncaca aipatos avOpwrniov Touupis edifnro év Toto. TeOvedoe 
tov Ilepcéwy tov Kipov véxuv, os 5é ebdpe, evarriKxe avTovd Thy 
Kehariy és tov acxov. Cf. Luc., [Macr.] 14 (3. 217) and especially 
Char. 13 (1. 508): Kpotcov pév ada@vat tro Kipov, Kipov 8e 
avrov tr éxewnol ths Maccayéribdos atrobaveiv. . . . Tomupus 
éxelvn éoti, Kal THY Keharyy ye atroTe“odca ToD Kupou aitn és 
doxov éuBaret tAHpyn aipatos. Cf. Ver. Hist. 2. 17 (2. 114). 

Libyan History. V. Hdt. 2. 32-150; 4. 48, 168-186, 191-2, 
Cf. Lucian’s Dipsas entire, noting the word dipsas in connection 
with Herodotos’ facts. Cf. Dio 1. 90.13 (Or. 5. 1 ff.); 2. 130. 
14 (Or. 47. 4). | 

Heracles, Alemene, Amphitryon. V. Hdt. 2. 43. Cf. Lue, 
[Charid.] 6 (3. 621); Dial. Deor. 10 (1. 229-30). 

Paris, Helen. V. Hat. 2. 112 ff. Dio 1. 178. 14 (Or. 11. 41) 
gives the same account, but repudiates the tradition of Hdt. and 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 39 


discusses the whole myth very extensively in Or. 11. V. Hague, 
Quaestiones Dioneae, 1887, p. 47. 

Cambyses has been treated quite fully by Hdt., bk. 3, in con- 
nection with Egyptian history. Cf. Luc. Char. 13 (1. 509). Of. 
Dio 1, 312. 21 (Or. 25. 5); 2. 251. 15 (Or. 73. 2). Note in par- 
ticular the account of the dishonor done the dead body of Amasis 
by Cambyses, Hdt. 3. 16 and Dio 2. 305. 32 (Corinthiaca 37). 
On Egyptian worship in general, v. Hdt. 3. 27-29; 2. 42; espe- 
cially 4, 181. Cf. Luc. Deor. Concil. 10 and 11 (3. 533-4); 
Sacer. 15 (1. 539). Cf. [Astrol.] 7-8 (2. 363-4). 

India. V. Hdt. 3. 94-105. Cf. Luc. [Asin.] 53 (2. 621); 
[Amor.] 41 (2. 442); Gall. 16 (2. 726). 

Arabia. V.Hdt. 3.107-113. Cf. Luc. Ver. Hist. 2. 5 (2. 
107); D. D. 8. 30 (3. 477). 

Polycrates, Maeander, Oroetes. V. Hat. 3. 120-125. Cf. 3. 39. 
Cf. Lue., Char. 14 (1. 510); Necyom. 16 (1. 478-9); Navig. 26 
(3. 265) ; Salt. 54 (2. 298). Cf. Dio 1. 276. 27 (Or. 17. 15). 

Zopyrus. Hdt. gives very fully, 3. 153-60, the story about 
Zopyrus at the siege of Babylon. He hacked himself up terribly 
and, presenting himself to the Babylonians, complained that he 
had been maltreated by Darius, and offered to serve the Baby- 
lonians against the Persians. He was received and rapidly rose in 
favor by reason of his prowess, and by a number of times killing 
or capturing bands of Persians intentionally put into his hands by 
Darius according to previous agreement. Finally, at the proper 
time, he turned over the city to Darius. Hdt. adds, 3. 160: woAdAd- 
kis 6é€ Aapeiov réyeras yvounv tHVvde atrodéEacOat, os BotroLTO 
av Zemvpoy civas atabéa Tis aetxeins wadrov 7) BaBvrAa@vds ot 
elkoat Tpos TH éovcn TmpocyevécOa. Cf. Luc., Jup. Trag. 53 (2. 
701): adda, © “Epyh, To Tod Aapeiov mavu Karas éyov éotiv, 5 
elmrev érr) Tov Zwmvipouv: wate Kal avTos éBovAouny av Eva ToLODTOV 
éyew olov tov Aduw Evppaxov 7 pvpias wor BaBura@vas tr- , 
dpxew. Cf. D, D.S. 25 (8. 471), where the appeal made to Com- 
babus seems very similar to that of Darius to Zopyrus, Hdt. 3. 
155. Also the honors heaped upon Zopyrus remind us of the 
honors here given Combabus. Note, too, that Combabus is granted 
permission to go to the king unannounced, which has a decided 
parallel in Hdt. 3. 84, 118. 


40 Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 


Aristeas, V. Hdt. 4.14,15. Cf. Dio 2. 306. 25 (Corinthiaca 37). 

Scythians. Cf. Hdt. 4. 26 and Luc., Deor. Dial. 16. 1 (1. 
243-4), Cf. Hdt. 4. 62 and Luc., Jup. Trag. 42 (2. 690); Saer. 
13 (1. 537), ete. Cf. Hdt. 4. 70 and Luc., Tox. (?) 36-8 (2. 
544-6). Cf. Hdt. 4. 85 and Luc., [Ner.] 2 (8. 637). Cf. Dio 1. 
312, 24 (Or. 25. 5); 1. 72. 8 (Or. 4. 45). Cf. Hdt. 4. 94-5 and 
Luc., Deor. Concil. 9 (8. 533); Ver. Hist. 2. 17 (2.114). Cf. Hdt. 
4.107 and Dio 2. 50. 15 (Or. 36. 7). 

The Toxaris, which Guttentag says does not belong to Lucian 
because it is too carefully imitative of him, furnishes many paral- 
lels to Hdt. So his Anacharsis may be connected with Hdt. 4, 
46, 76, 77. 

Clisthenes of Sicyon. V. Hdt. 5. 67 and ef. 6, 126. Cf. Dio 1. 
46. 21 (Or. 3. 41); 1. 180. 3 (Or. 11. 47). 

Pan (Datis and Artaphernes). Cf. Hdt. 6, 94 and Luc., Bis 
Ace. 9 (2. 801). Cf. Hdt. 6. 105 and Luc., Bis Acc. 9 (2. 801); 
Dial. Deor. 22. 3 (1. 271-2). With these passages ef. Hdt. 2. 46, 
145 and Luc., Philops. 3 (3. 32). Cf. Dio 1. 211.10 (Or. 11. 
148). ‘This is a very interesting study. 

Alemaeon. V. Chap. III under Dio Chr. 

Cimon. V. Hdt. 6,136. Cf. Dio 2. 252. 29 (Or. 73. 6). 

Xerxes. His history is given by Hdt. in books 7 and 8. Cf. 
Luc., Dem. Ene. 32 (3. 514); Rhet. Praec. 18 (8. 20); Dial. Mort. 
20. 2 (1. 412). Cf. Dio 1. 72. 7 (Or. 4. 45); 1. 211. 15 (Or. 11. 
148); 1. 247. 30 (Or. 13. 23); ete. 

Nisaean Horses. WV. Hdt. 7.40. Cf. Luc., Hist. 39 (2. 52). 
Cf. Dio 2. 61. 15 (Or. 36. 41). 

Themistocles. V.Hdt. 7. 141-2. Cf. Luc., Jup. Trag. 31 (2. 
678). Cf. Dio 2. 252. 22 (Or. 73. 5). 

Boreas and Orithya. V.Hdt. 7.189. Cf. Luc., Salt. 40 (2. 
292); Philops. 3 (8. 32). 

Leonidas. V. Hdt. 7. 204. Cf. Luc., Rhet. Praec. 18 (3. 20). 
Cf. Dio 1. 211. 15 (Or. 11. 148); 2. 283. 30 (Or. 78. 40). 

Salamis. V.Hdt. 7. 228; 8.5, 59, 61, 94, etc. Cf. Luc., Rhet. 
Praec. 18 (3. 20). Cf. Dio 1. 210. 15 (Or. 11. 145); 2. 298. 11 
(Or. Corin.) ; 2. 295. 4 (Or. Corin.). 

The story of Periander and Arion, Hdt. 1. 23-4, has been held 
in reserve for a little more careful inspection. The accounts of 


Herodotos in the Greek Renascence. 41 


both Lucian and Dio are very similar to the account of Hdt., even 


in phraseology, but only the former will be given. 


Cf. Luc., Mar. 


Dial. 8 (1. 308-9). Naturally, Lucian’s account is much shorter 
than that of Hdt., and he has omitted some parts altogether, but 
there is the same beginning, the same substance, the same style 


the same dp0orns : 


Herodotos. 


MnOuuvaiov . . . ciOap@mdov. 


troraBovra skevetnar él 
Taivapor. 
/ 
"Apiova ... éovta KiOap@dov 
A / >/ > \ / 
TOV TOTE eoVTwY OvdEVds Sed- 
Tepov, Kat SiOvpauBov mparov 
avOpoTov Ta’ hues tduev 
TONTAVTA TE Kat OVVOMaoaYTA 
++. TONXOY TOD yYpovou SvaTpi- 
\ / 
Bovra trapa Iepidvdpo. 
émiOupnoat TA@caL és “ITa- 
env Te Kat YKerinv, épyaca- 
pevov S€ yYpnuata peydra 2Oe- 
Anoas ortaw és KopwvOov amixé- 
aba. 
Tous € év TO TeNayeL émrL- 
\ 
Bovreveryv Tov Apiova éxBarov- 
\ 
Tas éxel TA YpHwaTa. 
Ve > / 
Tapaitnoacba, éresdy ot 
A PS) 4 i. a b eS > 
ovTw Soxéo., Treptideiy avTov év 
TH OKEVH Tan OTaVTA ev ToOtCL 
e / 7A 
éd@rlotoe deloat. 


Tov 5é évduyta Te Tacav Ti 
oKxevny Kat NaBovra tHy KiOd- 
pnv, otdvrTa év Toiat édwrioice 
SieEeAOeiv vowov Tov dpOov... 


pirat piv és tHv Odraccav 
a 


rat 


/ 
EWUTOD. = 
\ 


7 sea 


UNIVE: 
OF 





Lucian. 


KiOapwddov Toutovt Tov ék 
MnOvpurns. 

vrokaBav eEevnEdunv és 
Taivapov. 

0 Ilepiavdpos, otuas, éyarpev 
avT@® Kal ToANaKS peETETrEe"- 
TWeTo avtTov éml TH Téxvy. 


o 6€ TAovTHGAas Tapa TOD 
Tupavvov émeOvunoe mrAEvoaS 
olxade és THV Mn Oupvav érideté- 
acOat Tov TAOUTOP. 


> \ \ / \ > a 
émTrel KATA pecov TO Airyatov 
> / > / > A 
éyevovTo, émuBovNevovow avT@ 
ot vadTat. 
> \ n ©): mi / 
émel TavTa vpyiv dédoxrar, 
; \ 
édn, GAA THY TKEUNV avada- 
/ CPA 
Bovra pe kal doavta Ophvov 
a / 
Tia ém éuavT@ éxdvtTa édcate 
tn by / 
pirrar éwavTor. 
avénaBe THY oKevny Kab joe 
P 
mdvu uyupov, Kal émrecev és 
\ iz 
THVv OaraTrav. 


oi 


SITY 


 f* a5 yeaa eee US Pe 


























My i 
inet a 
a aah eae) 





























UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, 
‘ BERKELEY 


THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
“STAMPED BELOW © 


Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 
50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing 
to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in 
demand may be renewed if application is made before 
expiration of loan period. a 





a 


ho 
JAN 3 1963 














eet ete 


Se 
Ws, Se Bea 
sant 


“7 
f 
aaget 
oo 


~ _ 


Rats 


wy 
RS 
AS 
Rae 
Bo 
et 
ss ah ae 
MS SOS 
Rh 


‘ AS 
a SY 
SRE 
RN SARS Tes \ 
SERN AS x 
aN " x 
Se, 


: \ x ch 
r % ‘ Se \ ~S s Hy 
sey AN ~ SS — c Ww “teh th SE Nt SSN 
a NS RNY 


St _ 


AS RN 


a a 
mS 


as 


ry ASS 
x 


RAN 3h 
— A 
AN 


a 


ah 


AS 


‘i 
ROY 


RAN 


AAS 
i | 


‘ aN 


oF: 
oe RL ane 
ZEISS Se 


% 
\ - Siapti yh ei 
ae ee Sih i ANY 
Ne SNR it 
a ni oh i Ae * 


AN 


Aa RO) 
M MY 19) 


oF 


7 eee Joes 
ee are SSG 
er Ser LED aoe 
a é Leo 
Cp od Moi 
fee > Ss 


= S 
Sere 
ey 


wy tenes 


AN mith 


CNA 
" ais _ i, ‘ sin 
NY) % i ve HOR es) 


Avi Vv 


HR i pire aN 
i x 


Ay 


Ge ae | 

NS PRY my 
Ae eens 
ee eG 


a 

AA or DASE 

te fy 

ba tay iy 

Hoe i pis peak ies Bh 
alors ? 


SANS 
ma Ns 
a 

uae aN 
. 


A 

NY 
+ ‘ as SIREN \s ~ 
~~ _. 


a 


Porat 
_ Ae SAR SN 


oN ay —. ee 


_ ‘ si OX 
aN RN Ni nA N SS A 
a aN ‘ aN AR a“ \ 
- . eo 
‘ ~ ‘ , _ 
\ 


x 


. 
RRS AS 
SEAN SRR 
ay a AN AS 
SOS 


Ae 


sy 


NN 


AN 
RN 


NYS AS 
AK RES 
a Ay 


yt 
\ \ 


AS 


vi BN 


KA 


ain *, AN sh 
a WON 


NAN i 


" SNS AN NY ni 
NAAN y NY IN 


Moat 


SAG 


Ss 

i as TAN 

AY } ‘ 
oN 


x 
‘i 
a 
AN 
Co 
ON 


RS ae 


a aN 
oN) 


AAR 


vr 
HN 


ay 


SY 


se 
~ 


ths 
NY Ny 


A 


AX 
SENS 


\ 
\ 


. 
“¥ 


at Sy SY 
a 


* 


se 
a 


ty 


nits 
tis 


THN) 


AS 
Me 


A . aN 


\* 
OL 


ALY. 
S 4 


— 


S\k 
Su SUN L 


~ Se 


YY 
ST t 
Ny 


¥ 
a tr ne 


aS 
SOS 
SSRNENAS 


RS Sk 
aw 
WE SN 

















AAR 





‘ 
RANA 


RRRNY x ae 
¥O 





SS wt 


SAN 
Sat SOS 
AN AS 





